Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Exports to U.S.S.R.

Mr. Usborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade why licences for thread - grinding and gear - shaping machines required by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been recently refused.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Licences have been refused because the export of these machines to the U.S.S.R. is subject to embargo.

Mr. Usborne: Is not this embargo somewhat ludicrous at the present time in view of the fact that anybody who has visited the Leipzig or Hanover Fairs now knows that machines of very similar quality are being made in the Eastern European countries and are being obtained by the Soviet authorities? That being so, why cannot we now supply these machines from our own industry here?

Mr. Walker-Smith: We think, in conformity with our partners and allies in this matter, that the embargo is effective for the purposes for which it was designed.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that although Her Majesty's Government were wrong when they "went it alone" on

Suez, on this issue they might usefully "go it alone" and be right?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not accept the implication in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question or the invitation in the second part.

Mr. Usborne: Is this embargo list, which was made up so long ago, still as valid as it was then? Are there any changes that would make it less valid?

Mr. Walker-Smith: When the hon. Gentleman refers to "so long ago" he no doubt recalls that the strategic controls on trade with the Soviet Union were drastically curtailed in October, 1954. It is on that list that we now proceed.

Mr. Usbome: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to lift the restrictions on the export to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of machine tools of the types which Eastern bloc countries are exporting to other markets.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Not before we and our partners in the Paris Consultative Group consider that the strategic reasons for these restrictions have lost their validity.

Mr. Usborne: Are the Government having discussions with those partners, and particularly with the Americans, with a view to getting these restrictions rapidly modified?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There are no discussions taking place relating to the specific point raised in the Question of the hon. Member.

Factory, Trafford Park

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Ministry of Supply factory, Barton Dock Road, Trafford Park, until recently occupied by Platt Brothers, has yet been re-let.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): Negotiations are taking place with prospective tenants who are interested in about one-third of the factory. Other applications are being considered.

Mr. Storey: While thanking my hon. Friend for the effort which he has already made to let this factory space, may I ask whether the modern foundry block is


among the portions which are likely to be let, and whether efforts will be made to let the foundry space as early as possible?

Mr. Erroll: We are maintaining our efforts in respect of the factory as a whole, and we are making renewed attempts to find someone to take over the foundry. Our regional controllers have been asked to give all possible help in securing this end.

Potatoes and Tomatoes (Import Duties)

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has set a timetable for the consideration of the applications received for increased import duties on potatoes and tomatoes in the summer months; and whether any changes can be made effective for the current season.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. The time this will take depends upon the representations my right hon. Friend receives.

Mr. Hurd: That is a rather disappointing reply, especially in view of the fact, of which I now ask my hon. Friend if he is aware, that a very heavy flood of Canary tomatoes is now coming into this market, making the position for our tomato growers very difficult. Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to this matter?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, but I hope my hon. Friend does not find it disappointing that my reply should take into account the necessity for thoroughness and care in the examination of these applications and for providing a full opportunity to all interested parties to make known their views.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are Cyprus potatoes going to come in just at the time when the Ayrshire potatoes are on the market, and are the farmers to lose money, as the result of the actions of the Government?

Mr. Walker-Smith: That supplementary question goes a little wider than the Question on the Order Paper, but I will do my best to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity at an appropriate time.

Prices

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause an investigation to be made into the articles, commodities and services which have risen in price since the Suez Canal crisis, with a view to defining the extent to which these prices have been reduced to their pre-Suez crisis level; and whether he will take the necessary action, by the imposition of price control or other wise, to ensure that all of these prices are reduced to the prices pertaining in October, 1956, where it can be shown that these were increased due to the war in Suez.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Can the hon. Gentleman give any sensible or logical reason why he will not accept the suggestion made in my Question, or some such suggestion, when everybody, irrespective of political opinion, would agree that if these prices went up because of the Suez crisis they ought to be reduced now that the reason for the increase has gone? Is he aware that, although the price of flour has been reduced by 9s. a sack in the last few weeks the price of bread has gone up again? Will not the hon. Gentleman do something on the basis of the suggestion made in the Question?

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member has pursued this subject on a number of Parliamentary occasions. I think he would help his case best if he were to produce some facts and figures on which he bases his contention.

Metric System

Mr. G. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Bill to amend the Weights and Measures Acts, which has been, or is being, prepared, will include proposals for adopting the metric system, as recommended by the Hodgson Committee.

Mr. Erroll: I cannot anticipate the contents of the Bill. As regards the adoption of the metric system, I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 16th May.

Mr. Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I heard that unsatisfactory Answer, and that is why I left this Question on the Order Paper? Is he aware


that this is a great opportunity, not only to carry out the reform suggested by the Hodgson Committee, but also to place ourselves in line with the European market? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that quite a lot of trade is still being lost to this country because manufacturers still quote in measurements and weights that are in a form that cannot be understood by their potential customers?

Mr. Erroll: We are aware of that argument, and we are studying it, but we are far from convinced that we are losing any substantial volume of trade by adhering to the Imperial system.

Mr. Orbach: Can we have any idea when the Bill is to be presented to the House? I asked a question about four years ago, when I was told that it would be presented almost immediately.

Mr. Erroll: It will be presented as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

Monopolies Commission

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the reference on chemical fertilisers to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Commission is proceeding with its work. My right hon. Friend does no expect to receive its Report for some time.

Mr. Willey: The Minister of State will appreciate that there is a good deal of public concern about this matter, as a substantial subsidy element is involved. Will he call the attention of the Commission to the question whether we can get an earlier report than he, apparently, expects?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think the instrumentality of myself is necessary to make the Commission, and indeed the public generally, aware of any point raised in the House by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Orbach: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is a condition of membership of the National Pharmaceutical Union that applicants in retail, wholesale or manufacturing, shall be members of the Proprietary Articles Trade Association; and if he will ask the Monopolies Commission to make an inquiry on this matter and report to him.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend is not so aware; but if such a condition does exist, it would not be a matter on which a reference to the Commission could be based.

Mr. Orbach: Surely, this organisation, which is recognised by the Board of Trade and with which the Ministry of Health has dealings, ought not to lay down a condition that applicants should, in the first place, join a price-fixing organisation? Surely that fact ought to be referred to the Monopolies Commission?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will study Section 3 of the 1948 Act, he will see that this condition, taken by itself, does not constitute a case for reference to the Monopolies Commission. Price-fixing agreements, as I am sure he is aware, are not, in any event, a matter for the Commission, but one for the Restrictive Practices Court.

Sir H. Linstead: Is it not a fact that all that happens is that, for convenience, the two subscriptions can be paid together, and that if any member of the Union does not desire to be a member of the Association, that can be arranged?

Mr. Collins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that although the cost of producing newsprint in this country is only £35 per ton, the equalised price charged to newspapers is approximately £60 per ton; and if, in view of the dominating position of the two largest producers, he will refer the newsprint industry to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend is aware of the price charged to newspapers for newsprint; but he is not aware of the cost of production. My right hon. Friend will bear in mind any representations relating to this industry in considering references to the Monopolies Commission. But the hon. Member will have in mind that if there are any common price agreements in this industry, these are not a matter for the Monopolies Commission, but for the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that of imported newsprint nearly 50 per cent. is imported and used by the big newspaper chains like Rothermere and Northcliffe, which leaves the remaining


daily and evening newspapers in the hands of the newsprint companies, and constitutes a monopoly? Is he further aware that the inferior newsprint made from rags is foisted, to the extent of 80 or 90 per cent., on weekly provincial papers? Many newspapers have died, many more are in danger, and, whatever the position is technically, will he not have an inquiry into the price structure and distribution of newsprint?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's question relates to the reference of the newsprint industry to the Monopolies Commission. He will appreciate that the Monopolies Commission acts under statutory powers under the relevant Acts, and we cannot, of course, go outside these statutory formulæ.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is not the Minister aware that there is a widespread feeling that there are very serious restrictive practices in regard to the newsprint industry? Will he bear in mind that The Times, in a leading article last Saturday, said:
 If the newsprint companies feel that they have as good a case as they claim, they should welcome their operations being referred to the Restrictive Practices Court.
Is not this a matter of public interest, which the Minister ought to take far more seriously than he has done?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows so well from his participation in the proceedings when the Bill was before the House, cases are not referred to the Restrictive Practices Court. If there are common price agreements in the industry, they are, of course, liable to registration under the Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements Order, 1956, and will come before the Court in due course.

Copyright Act, 1956

Mr. Hyde: asked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for the delay in announcing the date for the coming into full operation of the Copyright Act, 1956.

Mr. Erroll: There has been no avoidable delay. As hon. Members will have realised, when they were debating the Copyright Bill, an interval was necessary between the passing of the Act and its coming into operation in order to

consult interested organisations, to prepare certain subordinate legislation and to set up the Performing Right Tribunal.

Mr. Hyde: Arising out of that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend when it is proposed that Her Majesty's Government should adhere to the Universal Copyright Convention, and so afford a measure of copyright protection in the United States of America for which British authors and publishers have been waiting for a very long time?

Mr. Erroll: It is our intention to ratify the Universal Copyright Convention shortly after the coming into operation of the Act.

Mr. Greenwood: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the necessary Instruments will be laid before the House?

Mr. Erroll: A number of Instruments will be laid tomorrow.

Newsprint Industry

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the need to preserve the freedom of the Press, he will institute an inquiry into the present ownership and policy of the newsprint industry and into other factors which appear to militate against the survival of some newspapers.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir.

Mr. Greenwood: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I tabled this Question to the Prime Minister because it raises issues which are beyond the responsibilities of the Board of Trade, including the impact of commercial television upon the advertising revenues of newspapers? Is he aware that this factor, as well as the high prices charged by the four newsprint companies, to which hon. Members have already referred, are generally accepted as being responsible for the difficulties which many papers are facing at the moment? If he cannot refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission, will he consider the possibility of setting up an inquiry into the newsprint industry of the kind for which there was all-party support last Friday?

Mr. Walker-Smith: In considering the question of setting up an inquiry, it is material to consider what is the likely benefit to accrue from such an inquiry. I have dealt with the position in regard


to the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court in answer to Question No. 9. In regard to these wider matters of the competition of television and so on, it is difficult to see what help the Government could give to the newspaper industry other than by way of subsidy or restrictions upon its competitors, neither of which courses, I think, would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Would not my right hon. Friend confirm the fact that the Newsprint Supply Company is wholly operated by newspaper proprietors themselves, who in turn operate an equalisation price scheme, and that they include the proprietors of Left-wing newspapers like the Daily Mirror and the Daily Herald?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Social Services (Expenditure)

Mr. Stevens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the increase in expenditure on the social services by the central government, the National Insurance Fund, and the local authorities between 1951–52 and 1956–57 compares with the rise in retail prices during the same period.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Between 1951–52 and 1956–57 expenditure on the social services increased by 38 per cent., and retail prices by about 23 per cent.

Mr. Stevens: Arising out of that Answer, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that, despite economic difficulties in the last few years, there has been a very substantial advance in the provision of real social services for the people?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the hon. Gentleman also recognise that a very large part of any increased expenditure is in fact due to rises in prices, and that the real increases in the value of the services are extremely limited?

Mr. Powell: That does not detract from the fact that there has been a substantial increase in real terms over the period—about 12½ per cent.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Government, who pledged themselves to reduce Government expenditure, record that there has been an increase in Government expenditure of £1,600 million since 1950–51. Is not the hon. Gentleman's answer an admission that by far the greatest single element in that increase of £1,600 million is the price rise and inflation?

Mr. Powell: But in that period there has been a substantial fall in the real burden of Government expenditure.

European Common Market and Free Trade Area

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his discussions with M. Faure, on behalf of the French Government, about proposals for a European Free Trade Area; and, in particular, what conclusions were reached about the entry of goods from French colonial territories into the European Common Market area and the European Free Trade Area, respectively.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Birch): My right hon. Friend was glad to welcome M. Faure and had useful discussions on the Common Market and the Free Trade Area.
My right hon. Friend took the opportunity of welcoming the signature of the Treaty of Rome and emphasising the importance which Her Majesty's Government attached to its ratification and to the association in a Free Trade Area of the United Kingdom and other countries of the O.E.E.C. with the European Economic Community. M. Faure for his part emphasised the French Government's support for such association.
There was an exchange of views on a wide range of matters, but it was not the object of the discussions to reach final conclusions on the many complex problems involved.

Mr. Wilson: While it would be wrong to press the right hon. Gentleman on the outcome of these discussions in view of the latest events in Paris, I should like to ask him a question. The very general communiqué issued by the Treasury covered the same points as the right hon. Gentleman has done. Is he aware, however, that apparently inspired statements


have appeared in the newspapers suggesting that included in the discussions are subjects relating to the position of French colonial territories in the Free Trade Area and that there was, at least, a provisional agreement that colonial territories should not be included in the Free Trade Area? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether there was such a provisional agreement and will he bear in mind that, if there was, it will be supported from all sides of the House?

Mr. Birch: As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, it is not customary to give details of private conversations between Ministers. I cannot add to what I have said.

Overseas Profits (Taxation)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish as a White Paper all the memoranda submitted by the Board of Inland Revenue to the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income on all aspects of the subject of exemption of overseas profits from home taxation.

Mr. Powell: The Royal Commission decided on grounds of expense, against publication of the written evidence submitted to it but arranged that copies should be deposited with the libraries mentioned in paragraph 12 of its Report. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of this House.

Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since it is generally known that the Board of Inland Revenue produced the most blistering memoranda on the original proposals for these overseas trade corporations, the interest in this matter goes much wider than this House? Will he not, therefore, consider publishing the memoranda as a White Paper so that newspapers and other commentators can inform themselves of the reason for the opposition of the Board of Inland Revenue thereto? Secondly, while we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to put the document in the Library, because of the widespread interest, may I ask whether he can arrange not only that one copy should be available, but that there will be a number of copies, and that they should be put in the Library almost immediately, so that we can put down appropriate Amendments to the Finance Bill?

Mr. Powell: I hope that it will be in the Library in a day or two. I will look into the point about how many copies can be made available. As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I suggest that he verifies his surmise.

Purchase Tax

Mrs. Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Purchase Tax was first imposed on the Crayleigh safeguard for gas and electric cookers; and how much has been collected, to date, from this tax.

Mr. Powell: Articles of this kind have been chargeable with Purchase Tax since October, 1940. The amount of tax collected on them is not separately known.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this is the first time that a cooker device or any device aimed at reducing accidents in the home has been subject to Purchase Tax? Is he further aware that what he gains on the Purchase Tax swings, he will lose on the hospital roundabouts? Why does he not abolish this tax?

Mr. Powell: There are a number of accident prevention devices which fall into Purchase Tax groups, and, of course, this item has had the Purchase Tax on it reduced by half in the Budget.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is not good enough to say that because the Government are misbehaving in respect of one item, they can misbehave in respect of many others too. Will the hon. Gentleman, realising, as I am sure he does, the widespread feeling all over the country about accidents in the home, have another special look at this question, the more so in that the House of Commons cannot, on this year's Finance Bill, move separate Amendments to deal with this point? Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at this matter and give a lot of satisfaction, I am sure, in all parts of the House?

Mr. Powell: Naturally, I sympathise with the object behind the two questions, but the exemption of accident prevention devices generally is a very complicated and difficult matter.

Dame Irene Ward: Does my hon. Friend realise that what I think is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the


rest of the Treasury Ministers are so taken up with the big financial problems of the day that they really have no time for these most important and small details? Would it not be a good thing if they got a few housewives to get down to telling them what to do?

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend has been able to look at this detail very carefully.

Mr. Wilson: Since, to follow the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), the hon. Gentleman and other Treasury Ministers have made such an awful mess of the big financial and economic problems, could they not at least gain a little credit with the hon. Lady and also more widely by applying their minds to this problem a little more constructively?

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the reasons for heavy rates of Purchase Tax on domestic space and water heating appliances operated by gas and electricity, based largely on indigenous fuel, namely, coal, whereas similar domestic appliances operated by imported oil fuel are free of Purchase Tax; and, in view of current hazards in oil supply, whether he will rearrange matters to encourage maximum use of indigenous fuel resources.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend has noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Nabarro: To return to the supplementary question asked earlier by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that in the terms of the Finance Bill this year, none of these important issues can be raised in Committee or on the later stages of the Bill? As this is an anomaly which we have had now for several years, and having regard to the hazardous oil supply position in the future, is it reasonable that we should continue to give preference to oil consumption at the expense of indigenous fuels?

Mr. Powell: Those are points which my right hon. Friend has noted in connection with my hon. Friend's Question.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. As I am precluded from raising this question on the Finance Bill, I give notice that I shall seek to raise it on the Adjournment when it will be in order.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. Member not be equally out of order in trying to raise on the Adjournment a matter of taxation legislation? In view of that, will the Government again consider this matter and see whether it cannot be raised, in order, on the Finance Bill?

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not seen what question the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) desires to raise. When I see it, I will express an opinion as to whether it is in order.

Travel Allowance (Dollar Area)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will pursue his desire to provide a basic travel allowance for the dollar area by discussing the problem with the Canadian and United States Governments now, to see if some mutually satisfactory arrangements can be made.

Mr. Birch: My right hon. Friend is anxious to provide this allowance as soon as circumstances permit.

Mr. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fairly confident that he will be successful in this so that ordinary people can visit Canada and America, which will be welcomed on both sides of the Atlantic?

Mr. Birch: I quite agree that it is desirable.

Italy (Double Taxation Agreement)

Mr. Hyde: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made towards the conclusion of a double taxation agreement with Italy.

Mr. Powell: I hope that such an agreement will shortly be signed and submitted to Parliament for ratification.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY COMMISSION

Cottage, Aberangell

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the tenant of the Forestry Commission lodge at Aberangell can expect that his cottage will be repainted and redecorated.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): The Forestry Commission has informed my right hon. Friend that it will paint the outside of the cottage this year. The tenant is responsible for internal decoration.

Mr. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that this cottage has been allegedly down for painting for several years? Is he further aware that when the Forestry Commission leases a property, it insists on a five-year painting clause? In these circumstances, how has this cottage gone unpainted for over twenty years?

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is not quite correct in his facts. The cottage was painted in 1943, 1949 and 1951. I am, nevertheless, grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the point to my attention.

Mr. Bennett: As I live there, I know perfectly well when the cottage was last painted.

Road Exit, Dovey Forest

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated comparative cost of making the principal Forestry Commission Dovey Forest road exit to Aber-angell via the hilly Cwmllecoediog Drive and the flat lower disused tramway road, respectively, taking into account the plans of the local authority to make up the latter in any case.

Mr. Godber: The estimated cost of the first road is £2,600. Any work which the county council may do on the tramway road would be insufficient to make it fit for forestry traffic. The extra cost of so doing would be at least £1,400 and might involve compulsory purchase of agricultural land. The comparison is not however valid since, if the old tramway road were used, it would still be necessary to improve at least part of the other road and to carry out major works in Aber-angell village.

Mr. Bennett: To anticipate further suggestions, might I again ask the Minister to appreciate that I have some local knowledge of the matter? Will he realise that if he persists in a scheme which means taking logs to the top of the hill only to bring them down again, he will be emulating a certain famous Duke of York?

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has gone into the matter at great length with my hon. Friend. I would remind my hon. Friend that in March this year a special meeting attended by the County Surveyors of Merioneth and Mont-gomerty, the County Clerk of Merioneth and the Chairman of the Merioneth Highways Committee came to the conclusion that the suggestion that my hon. Friend makes is not a practical one.

Softwood Timber

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his estimate of the approximate volume of soft wood timber of 12-inch diameter and up wards at breast height now standing in the Forestry Commissions' plantations.

Mr. Godber: The Forestry Commis-mission estimates the volume at between 40 and 50 million cubic feet Hoppus measure.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Prices

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the price of meat has been increased from 5 to 7½ per cent., and sugar Id. to 2d. more per pound since the Suez crisis; and if he will now take steps to have these increases removed.

Mr. Godber: While I cannot accept the hon. Lady's figures, any increases which have occurred in food prices have been offset by reductions in the prices of other foods so that the index of retail food prices in March was at about the same level as in October. My right hon. Friend does not consider that any action on his part is required.

Mrs. Mann: Am I to take it that when there was a direct opportunity to reduce the cost of living hon. Gentlemen opposite were content to keep it as it was by allowing increases to offset certain reductions? Would that have pleased the Conservative women's conference yesterday?

Mr. Godber: Without going into the matter concerning the Conservative women's conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because it does not arise


on the Question—I would tell the hon. Lady that in my view, and in the view of the Government, it is right to leave these matters to private enterprise. One then gets interplay, and competition arises. Many other foodstuffs have come down in price as a direct result of competition during the period referred to.

Mr. Willey: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that he has a responsibility in respect of the surcharge on sugar? When will he announce that the surcharge is to be removed?

Mr. Godber: The matter of the surcharge is perhaps a little outside the terms of the Question, but I would point out that when the Sugar Act was being dealt with by the House it was amended at the instance of hon. Members opposite to provide that a period of six months ahead should be clearly seen before any alterations were made. The subject is very much in my right hon. Friend's mind, and no doubt before long we may be in a position to make a statement.

Dame Irene Ward: I agree that it would be a good thing if all prices went down at the same time instead of there being fluctuations, but will my hon. Friend explain to the Opposition that the Conservative women's conference does not want food controls?

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the latest and third decrease of 9s. per sack in the cost of flour, he will take steps now to reduce and control the price of bread.

Mr. Godber: No, Sir.

Mrs. Mann: Is it not incredible that, after all the decreases in the price of flour, I should be given the "brush-off" when I ask for a reduction in the price of bread? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that instead of the Conservative ladies being taken to the Terrace for tea, they should have been brought up to the Public Gallery to hear the "brush-off" that we are constantly given when we ask for a reduction?

Mr. Godber: I am sure that the Conservative ladies would have approved of the Answer which I have given the hon. Lady, because I am sure that they believe, as I do, that it is not right to reimpose price control.

Mr. Willey: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is some evidence of monopolistic tendencies in the industry, and that for that reason there is a responsibility on the Government to have an inquiry and to reduce prices by order?

Mr. Godber: Bread is one of the very first items to come before the Restrictive Practices Court. I think it is best to leave the matter there.

Captain Pilkington: If the price of bread is to be controlled, will it involve rationing, as was the case under the Socialist Administration?

Skimmed Milk (Disposal)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will examine the possibility of using the large amount of skimmed milk, which is being poured daily on a field adjoining the creamery at Builth Wells; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: Because of the record milk production over the last few weeks, the Milk Marketing Board and the manufacturers of milk products have not been able to find a market for all the skimmed milk which has been available.
All the factories have been worked to the absolute limit. New plant has been brought into operation this year. The Board has made a vigorous and successful effort to increase the sales of skimmed milk for stock feeding.
Nevertheless, as in every year since 1950, it has not proved possible to avoid the wastage of some skimmed milk during the short flush season. No one regrets this more than the Milk Marketing Board who, in close collaboration with the manufacturers, are making every effort to avoid waste. Milk production is now falling slightly from its record seasonal peak of over 43 million gallons a week, and it is hoped that all the skimmed milk will be handled without waste by the end of next week.

Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister kindly ensure that all villages and schools around the depot are first provided with fresh milk? Also, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Milk Marketing Board and bring pressure upon the owners of the creamery to devise some


process for dealing with surplus milk, even if it entails milk being brought for the purpose from other creameries in South Wales?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman's first point is a matter for the Milk Marketing Board, and I will ensure that his comments are brought to its attention. With regard to his second point, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the factory in Builth Wells is a C.W.S. one, and the Milk Marketing Board has for some time been urging the C.W.S. to extend its manufacturing capacity there. I hope that it will be successful.

Mr. Willey: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the milk is not used? Why is it not used for feeding pigs? Why is it going to waste?

Mr. Godber: There has been a very substantial increase in its use for feeding pigs. The problem is an economic one, that of being able to convey it far enough, for the cost of distribution is so high. Nevertheless, as I said, there has been a substantial increase in its use. Some 750,000 gallons a week have been used recently for stock feeding.

Compound Fertilisers (Mixing and Bagging Charge)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to compel merchants to disclose the charge made for preparing for sale, by mixing and bagging, compound fertilisers.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has no power to compel merchants to make such disclosures.

Mr. Willey: As inquiries show that there is a very wide variation in the rake-off of manufacturers—in some cases it is higher than 50 per cent.—will the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend to seek these powers?

Mr. Godber: I am surprised at the figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman. Fifty per cent. seems extremely high. I would remind him, however, that it is very easy for farmers, if the prices seem excessive to them, to buy straight fertiliser. I should have thought that that would be an effective check against any monopolistic tendencies.

Mr. Willey: As it is not an effective check, will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?

Export of Live Cattle (Slaughterhouses)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which were the slaughterhouses referred to in the report of the committee of inquiry into the export of live cattle which failed to satisfy the standards required by the United States Army Veterinary Corps: and in what respects did they fail.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is communicating with Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who was the Chairman of the Committee, and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible. He understands, however, that the requirements of the United States military authorities for slaughterhouse equipment include steam hoses and cool air chambers, which are not normally available in this country.

Mr. Willey: Does not the hon. Gentleman admit that it is an awful reflection upon conditions in this country if we have to export cattle to be slaughtered for the United States Army? It is disgraceful reflection upon the state of our slaughterhouses. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall have legislation next Session to deal with this disgrace?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are considering new legislation dealing with slaughterhouses, and I hope that it will come before the House next Session. In the meantime, we are producing draft regulations as a guide to people who are proposing to improve their slaughterhouses, and I hope these will be available very shortly.

Veterinary Surgeons

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinary students graduate each year; to what extent the number of qualified veterinary surgeons is increasing; and if he is satisfied that the present veterinary schools are adequate to meet the calls on the profession.

Mr. Godber: On average over the last five years about 230 new veterinary graduates have been added annually to


the statutory register, while the total number on the register has increased by about 130 a year. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the existing veterinary schools are unable to provide a reasonable flow of graduates.

Eggs

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the estimated cost of the subsidy to producers on shell eggs for the first four months of 1957, and the estimated weekly cost compared with the average cost of the subsidy for the equivalent periods in each of the preceding two years; the estimated total subsidy payable for the current year to egg producers; and what remedial action he proposes to take before the next Price Review.

Mr. Godber: The cost of the subsidy to producers on shell eggs for the first four months of 1957 is estimated at £26·3 million, an average weekly cost of about £1·5 million; the average weekly cost of the subsidy for the corresponding periods of 1955 and 1956 was about £450,000 and £410,000 respectively. The published estimate of the cost of the subsidy on eggs for the current year is £32·7 million, but it is already apparent that this figure is likely to be substantially exceeded. As regards remedial action, I cannot add to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend on 20th May.

Mr. Nabarro: But would not my hon. Friend agree that there are still eight months to the next Price Review, and that the present rate of subsidy—an average of £1½ million a week—would represent an additional expenditure of about £48 million for eggs? Is there to be a Supplementary Estimate or Vote presented to the House? Surely this state of affairs calls for some remedial action at an early date, and not eight months hence.

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend may be assured that if there is need for a Supplementary Estimate it will be presented to the House. I am afraid that his figure of £1½ million is not exactly accurate, because the bulk of the subsidy in the last year—and, indeed, for a number of years, I think—has fallen in the first three months of the year. Therefore, the figures need not be so large as my hon. Friend puts them.

Mr. Willey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary remember that a previous Conservative Minister of Food abolished this subsidy?

Mr. Nabarro: It is still £1½ million a week, and that is too much.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantities of shell eggs have been exported since 1st January, 1957, to European countries which are signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and what is the total value of such eggs; what element of Government subsidy is inherent in these exports; what discussions with foreign countries are taking place in this matter; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: During the first four months of 1957, about 124,000 boxes of 30 dozen eggs valued at £400,000 were exported to European countries which are signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The best estimate that can be made of the average rate of subsidy on these eggs is approximately Is. 11d. per dozen. Discussions with the Danish Government took place earlier this week and, as already announced, Her Majesty's Government have decided to take steps to prevent serious damage being caused to the normal Danish export markets as a result of the export of eggs which have benefited from the subsidy on home production.

Mr. Nabarro: Does that reply mean that there is to be an estoppel put on the export of eggs by Her Majesty's Government? If it does mean that, surely it will follow that we are to add to the surplus at home and thus to the taxpayers' burden, and further aggravate what I consider to be the appalling figures which my hon. Friend gave in his last reply?

Mr. Godber: I think that my hon. Friend is a little unduly gloomy about this matter, because in actual fact the exports have been reduced very substantially in recent weeks and are now running at a much lower figure. As regards such arrangements as are to be taken, I would assure him that machinery for implementing the Government's decision is being worked out, and will be announced after further consultation with the Danish


Government. I do not think that it would be right for me to comment further while those consultations proceed.

Mr. Willey: Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate in what way he is to implement action consequent upon this admission of incredible folly and stupidity, and waste of the taxpayers' money?

Mr. Godber: Without conceding the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that it would be wrong for me to comment while these negotiations are going on, A full statement will be made, of course.

Mr. H. Morrison: As some of us are rather mystified by the complications of this business, would the Parliamentary Secretary convey to his right hon. Friend that it would be a good thing if we had a White Paper—that is, if we have not got one—which would really fully explain the economics of this transaction, including the consequences to Denmark and to countries to which we export? Does he not think that the House should be fully informed about this? It does involve very big amounts for the taxpayers.

Mr. Godber: While I would, naturally, consider very seriously anything which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, I do not think that a White Paper is called for. These exports are really very marginal. The numbers exported are really quite small in relation to the total output.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the reports which are circulating to the effect that British eggs are being exported at a rate of over ½ million boxes a week, and at a cost to the taxpayer of £1½ million a week? Would he not agree that these figures are inaccurate and that, therefore, the reports are very misleading?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that this matter arose in Press reports, which I did see. The figures, of course, are totally wrong. In fact the figure quoted of over ½ million boxes a week is the total output of all our packing stations, nearly all of which goes for home consumption. The same applies to the figure for subsidy of l½ million a week for the export: the total

subsidy on exported eggs in the first four months will be, I should say, approximately £400,000.

Mr. Willey: Now that there have been these further discussions, would the hon. Gentleman agree that these eggs were deliberately used to break the Danish prices in the West European market?

Mr. Godber: No, I would not agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Hungarian Refugees

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many Hungarian refugees have now received sufficient training to make them employable underground;
(2) in which areas he has had difficulty in placing Hungarians for employment in the mines; and for what reasons.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am informed by the National Coal Board that so far 480 Hungarians have received sufficient training to make them employable underground. The National Coal Board is responsible for their allocation to the mines, and I understand that some branches of the National Union of Mine-workers have objected to Hungarians being placed in particular collieries, mainly in South Yorkshire, the Midlands and South Wales. This is a matter for the Board and the National Union of Mineworkers who are, I understand, actively engaged in dealing with it.

Mr. Remnant: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I point out that it is still his responsibility, to some extent, to obtain employment for these men? If the objections lie on the score of personal risk, will he ask the Chairman of the Coal Board to consider whether training could not be designed with a view to allotting what have hitherto been regarded as uneconomic pits to be worked solely by Hungarian miners?

Mr. Macleod: I think that that Question goes beyond my responsibility in this instance. I have a general responsibility, of course, but in this particular case I have not. Indeed, the information which I give to the He use is passed on from the National Coal Board. I can say.


however, that the numbers actually employed in the collieries have gone up by 70 or so since I gave a figure about a fortnight ago—207 have actually started. There are difficulties remaining, and I think that the only way to get over them is for the Board and the N.U.M. to get together.

Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister aware that the employment of foreigners in the mines is governed by the 1947 agreement, and that Questions like that asked by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) are making it more difficult for the N.U.M. and the Coal Board to get over these difficulties? Could the Minister tell us how many Hungarians have been employed in the breweries?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Labour how many Hungarian refugees have been placed in industry other than coal mining.

Mr. Iain Macleod: About 11,000 Hungarian refugees have been placed in employment other than coal mining. This total includes refugees who were placed in temporary employment but have since emigrated to Canada, and the actual number now at work is somewhat less.

Mr. Mason: Does the Minister realise that there are very special difficulties in the way of placing Hungarians in the coal mining industry, as compared with other industries? First, the Hungarians have to go into areas where there is hostel accommodation available but not necessarily vacancies; and, second, they have to train for sixteen weeks before being accepted for work underground. Is he aware that at the present time discussions are taking place, particularly in Yorkshire, with a view to providing Hungarians with special facilities to work together in drift mines?

Mr. Macleod: That may be so. It is a very ingenious supplementary question, but it is not directed to the Question, which relates to all other industries except coal mining.

Mr. Robens: Is it possible for the Minister to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton)?

Mr. Remnant: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has received any opposition from any other industries about the employment of Hungarians, and if he has, can he state which industries they are?

Mr. Macleod: It is true that the difficulties have mainly, indeed almost entirely, come about in coal mining, but there are special reasons there. The trade unions have been extremely helpful throughout, and I am very grateful for their co-operation.

Mr. Robens: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) as to how many Hungarians have gone into the breweries, particularly those associated with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant)?

Furniture and Upholstery Industry

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Labour to state, at the latest convenient date, the number of furniture workers unemployed and the number on short time.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The number of persons last employed in the furniture and upholstery industry registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain at 15th April was 1,988. The number of operatives on short time at firms in the industry which rendered returns for the week ended 30th March was 3,700 but reports from my regional controllers indicate that there has been some increase since then.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that this is the third successive year in which there has been considerable unemployment in the furniture industry, and that currently it is rapidly getting worse, despite the fact that many have left the industry? Will he get in touch with his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade to see if they can do something to bring about an improvement?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the unemployment figures which I have given are rather better than comparable figures of a year ago, which is unusual in most trades. Actually, these figures are rather out of date, as my Answer indicated. I


will have some more recent figures very soon, and perhaps I can send those to the hon. Gentleman, and consider his supplementary question in the light of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Prisoners (Interviews)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the system of interviewing prisoners eligible for corrective training for the purpose of making reports which may be published in court, with special reference to the danger of defaming third parties who have no.redress.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Not yet, Sir, but I am making progress with this problem, and if the hon. Member would care to put down a Question for answer next Thursday, I hope by then to be in a position to indicate what action I propose to take.

Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society (Government Payment)

Mr. Orbach: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to hand over to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society the remaining £70,000 promised by Her Majesty's Government to the Society for its work in aiding British nationals expelled from Egypt.

Mr. R. A. Butler: it has been agreed with the Anglo-Egyptian Society that, in addition to the £30,000 already paid to it, a further sum of £50,000 should be paid to it in respect of the work which it has done, before the establishment of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. It is proposed to submit to Parliament a Supplementary Estimate to authorise the payment of this sum of £50,000 to the Society.

Mr. Orbach: Is the Home Secretary not aware that the Society has presented an account for £77,000, and did so in February of this year, before the date when I raised this issue, in a debate which I initiated, when his Parliamentary Secretary replied that there was no such demand made by it? Will he pay the £77,000, as he undertook to do in the first place?

Mr. Butler: No; I am informed that this agreement was made by agreement with the Society. It will bring the final payment of Government moneys to £80,000. That means that the Society will have spent only £30,000 out of its own resources on this operation, and will be left with some £60,000, out of £90,000 raised by public subscription as a result of an appeal. The Society has done extremely well; there are some minor disputes on minor bills outstanding with it, which we shall do our best to settle. I am satisfied that we have done the right thing by the Society, and that it has done its duty.

Parking (Removal of Cars)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cars have been towed away for improper parking in the Metropolitan Police district up to date; and in how many of these cases the owners were prosecuted.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that, up to 20th May, 148 vehicles were removed from the roads in the Metropolitan Police district under powers conferred on the police by The Removal of Vehicles (England and Wales) Regulations, 1957. The question of proceedings is being considered in all cases.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: In the light of experience in London, does my right hon. Friend propose to recommend this practice to the police elsewhere?

Mr. Butler: I should like to consider that matter. I think that we have made a start in London which, while preserving as much as we possibly can the liberty of the subject, also maintains circulation on the highway.

Borstal Institution (Film Shows)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case where a film depicting an escape from captivity was shown to inmates of a Borstal institution, with the result that two youths immediately proceeded to break out; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such unsuitable films will not be shown in future.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, two inmates of Portland Borstal Institution, who were taking part in a route march under escort, absconded after attacking the escort. The previous day they, along with other inmates, had seen the film "The Colditz Story", which bears a "U" certificate and deals with life in a prisoner-of-war camp. My inquiries do not result in establishing any decisive connection between the escape and the showing of the film.
The question of the suitability of films is one which I must leave to the authorities responsible, and I have confidence in their judgment.

Metropolitan Police (Fingerprints)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances the Metropolitan Police are instructed to take fingerprints from persons charged with minor offences.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In ordinary circumstances, the police do not take fingerprints from persons charged with minor offences.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Home Secretary explain how taking a person's fingerprints helps the police to prove a charge of drunkenness?

Mr. Butler: I would rather not go into detail. If the hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, have a talk with me, I will explain the matter to him.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds an order has been issued to the Metropolitan Police, as recently stated in evidence by Inspector Atkinson at the Clerkenwell Magistrates' Court, that all Irishmen's fingerprints are to be taken; and whether, in view of the discrimination involved in this order, he will now have it withdrawn.

Mr. Orbach: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority, and in what circumstances, police officers in the Metropolitan Police district take the fingerprints of Irishmen.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In the absence of a court order, the fingerprints of a person in police custody may be taken only with consent. The instruction mentioned by

the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was confined to the taking of fingerprints with consent for the purpose of assisting a particular criminal investigation, and the fingerprints taken have been subsequently destroyed.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it from that Answer that the Home Secretary repudiates the suggestion made that the fingerprints of all Irishmen charged with minor offences are in future to be taken?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to commit myself to any such generalisation.

Mr. Gaitskell: I understood from the Home Secretary's original reply that this was an individual case wherein a particular person gave his Consent. Would the right hon. Gentleman not be prepared to say that there is no reflection on Irishmen as a whole?

Mr. Butler: There is no reflection on Irishmen at all. There is also no desire on my part to restrict those authorities responsible for the detection of crime.

Mr. Hyde: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, so far as Irishmen are concerned, whether they are innocent or not, they seldom plead guilty?

Mr. Orbach: May we take it from the reply of the Home Secretary that the statement made by Inspector Atkinson since the recent murder, that it is an order that all Irishmen's fingerprints are to be taken, is either incorrect, as put in that very fruitful newspaper, the Sunday Express, or that the inspector himself is to be reprimanded by the Home Secretary? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarm that this sort of statement has created amongst other minority groups, apart from Irishmen?

Mr. Butler: It is the fundamental duty of the Home Secretary to protect minorities and the liberty of the subject. I certainly will investigate the particular point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention, and perhaps communicate with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR RADIATION (HAZARDS)

Dr. Stross: asked the Prime Minister how often the signatories to Command Paper No. 9780, on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations, have met in order to consider further evidence made available since June, 1956.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), on 25th March, 1957.

Dr. Stross: Would not the Prime Minister consider asking them not merely to meet for a few minutes or for half an hour, as I understand they have done, but to meet in order to consider whether a further report is not now needed, in view of the evidence which they now have which they did not have before them at the time they last reported?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, I will consider that, but I think that I ought to make clear again what I tried to make clear in answer to a supplementary question a few days ago, namely, that the work of the Medical Research Council is not something which is done and finished with. It is a permanent inquiry, and there is a standing committee of the Council for this purpose. It has its own research units, and there is what one might call a continuing progress of research.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the fact that it is a body continuously at work constitute an argument in favour of inviting the Council to produce a further report?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I will certainly consider that from time to time. As in all these investigations, there is, I think, a moment when there may, perhaps, be enough new material to justify a new report.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is some time since the last Report was produced, and here has, since then, been a great conflict of opinion on this matter, between, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and many other scientists? Would the Prime Minister not agree that it would the desirable to have the Medical Research Council's views on the matter?

The Prime Minister: I do not think hat there is really a very great conflict of opinion, but I will certainly consider whether a supplementary report should, IOW or at some near date, be produced.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of what the 'rime Minister has said, may I ask him

whether he has read the letter by Professor Haddow, a member of that Committee, published in The Times today, refuting the statement made in another place last week on this subject? In view of that, would the Prime Minister now reconsider convening the committee?

The Prime Minister: It is not a question of reconvening the committee. The main body is a permanent body. There is a sub-committee, with various research units, and it is simply a question of what are the convenient intervals for making up-to-date reports.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS

Dr. Stross: asked the Prime Minister whether the casing of the hydrogen bomb which was exploded on 15th May in the Pacific Ocean was free from uranium or plutonium.

The Prime Minister: As I said in my statement in reply to Questions on Tuesday, for reasons of national security I am unable to pass on to the House any detailed information about the precise type and design of the weapon exploded.

Oral Answers to Questions — RADIOSTRONTIUM

Dr. Stross: asked the Prime Minister whether he has noted that the amount of radiostrontium found in the bones of newly-born children and young infants is appreciably higher than in the bones of adults; and what action the Government propose to take to prevent the incidence of bone cancer and leukemia as the amount rises in future years.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The fact that radiostrontium is concentrated to a greater extent in the bones of young children than in those of adults was recognised and taken fully into account in the Report of the Medical Research Council published in June, 1956. I am informed that the present average level found in the bones of children under five years of age is well below one unit. The Medical Research Council has expressed the view that the concentration in the general population, with its proportion of young children, should not exceed 100 units.

Dr. Stross: Has the Prime Minister noted, in looking at this problem, that the


tendency for radiostrontium in bones, whether of cattle or human beings, does tend to rise, and that we must expect it inevitably to rise in the next twenty years, even if no more explosions are made? As it has risen in sheep, for example, ten times over a period of three years—1954 to 1956—will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question, namely, what he is going to do:
 to prevent the incidence of bone cancer and leukemia as the amount rises in future years.

The Prime Minister: There are two parts to the Question. I must repeat that the ratio between what is regarded as reasonably safe and what now exists is 100 to 1. Although that should not make us complacent, it certainly should not make us unduly pessimistic. With regard to the larger question, we have debated that and we shall again debate it in the future. It is our hope that a full measure of disarmament agreement may be reached between the great Powers.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Prime Minister aware that this condition is cumulative and, therefore, there can be no comfort in the thought that there is only a certain amount present in the bones of young children at this stage?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but whether it is cumulative or not, these ratios are still an effective test of the reality of the situation.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister keeps quoting the Medical Research Council as though its Report supported the idea that there was a threshold dose below which no danger obtains? Is it not true that the Report cannot be interpreted in that way, particularly in the light of the very important appendix elaborating the argument that in fact the relationship is proportionately between the dose and its effects and there is not a threshold dose?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I think that that is not a correct reading of the Report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 27TH MAY—Report and Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill.

Second Reading of the Solicitors Bill [Lords] and of the Dentists Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures;

Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, and a similar Scheme for Scotland; and the Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order.

TUESDAY, 28TH MAY and WEDNESDAY, 29TH MAY—Further progress will be made in Committee on the Finance Bill.

THURSDAY, 30TH MAY—It is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Win-frith Heath Bill, if the necessary preliminaries have been completed.

Afterwards, we shall resume the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

FRIDAY, 31ST MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

It may be convenient if I inform the House that we expect to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess on Friday, 7th June. If good progress is made with essential business, we think it would be desirable for the Recess to extend over two weeks. I will name the date of return before putting a Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Gaitskell: However desirable it may be, particularly in the interests of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that we should adjourn for a fortnight instead of ten days, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the idea of linking this up with progress on any particular Bill is a very unfortunate suggestion to make and that we can give no possible undertaking on that subject?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I have no intention of making any conditions, because I understand the right hon. Gentleman


and his Friends well enough not to do that. I simply said, "if good progress is made with essential business ", which is an obvious caution which I must put in. That is why I have not yet named the date of return. Judging from precedent by the party opposite and the Labour Governments—in 1949, 1950 and 1951 there were two weeks adjournment at Whitsun, and in the Coronation year, 1953 and in July, 1955, for other reasons, there were longer periods—I think that in relation to the general efficiency of Parliament it would be a good idea to have two weeks.

Mr. H. Wilson: Are we to assume that in the phrase "essential business" the right hon. Gentleman includes the Finance Bill, which is somewhat controversial? If he does, is he aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be most desirous of giving that important Bill most constructive examination and that, as an earnest of that, his own back benchers have put down about 70 Amendments, dealing principally with the Clauses relating to the overseas trade corporations? Does he intend that Amendments should be as adequately discussed as they were last year?

Mr. Butler: We rejoice to see the return of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) to the field. With his presence in discussions on the Finance Bill, we may be assured that there will be meticulous care in its handling. We are prepared to submit the Amendments of my hon. Friends to the attention they deserve and we intend that the Finance Bill should be properly considered. It also means that we should like to see some progress made, because it is a compensation for some progress that we should also get some relief from our labours.

Dame Irene Ward: In dealing with the business for next week, could my right hon. Friend see that we have some new flowers put in the boxes on the Terrace, because they are dead and look appalling?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is relevant to the business before the House.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether this additional week at Whitsun which is in contemplation is

attributable to the anxieties expressed about Ministers being overburdened, or is intended to provide additional relaxation for overburdened hon. Members?
At the same time, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Private Bill, introduced in another place, which is intended to transfer Arundel Castle from its present owner to the State, is likely to come before this House soon?

Mr. Butler: I cannot say anything today about the Private Bill which refers to Arundel Castle. If I can, I will give the House any information when I have it in my possession.
In reply to the first part of the question of the right hon. Member, our idea was that we might freshen up the Opposition by giving them a little more relaxation. As to Ministers, we are so confident in the outcome of the report of the committee of Privy Councillors that we are already refreshed.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it still the intention of the Government to have an early debate on the European Free Trade Area, or has so little progress been made in three months with the work that the Chancellor gave to the working committee that it is not possible to have a debate?

Mr. Butler: We should not be able to do that before Whitsun. It is not true that no progress has been made, but it is true that the Treaty of Rome has been signed and the Customs Union has been established. That does not mean that the initiative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is less effective than it was. When we are ready we shall be eager to have a debate.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when the Bill dealing with Arundel Castle comes before the House adequate time will be given for its discussion, because if he wants to enliven the Opposition there would be no surer way of doing so than by giving adequate time for discussion of that Bill.

Mr. Butler: That is a matter rather for the Chairman of Ways and Means than for the Government and myself, in following the normal procedure for a Private Bill.

Mr. Ede: Inasmuch as the Winfrith Heath Bill was introduced only yesterday, and is to be debated next Thursday and the deposited plans relating to it have to be studied in Dorchester, will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting a copy of the plans in the Library, or some other convenient place in this House?

Mr. Butler: I will do anything I can to ease the problem of hon. Members in examining the Bill.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last Thursday I raised the question of the substantial salary increases to be granted to the judiciary, and that I asked him whether he could tell the House when the necessary legislation to give Parliamentary sanction to those increases would be introduced, and that he said he would discuss the matter through the usual channels? Could he now tell us what the result of that discussion was, and whether he thinks it is a desirable practice to pay out public money before having Parliamentary sanction for doing so?

Mr. Butler: I will not animadvert at the moment on the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. On the former part, I would say that we cannot at present give a date for the consideration of this Bill, but we shall as soon as possible.

Mr. Ross: Has the Leader of the House consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland about the question of an extended Whitsun Recess? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was, I think, only yesterday forenoon, but also at various times during the preceding night, that the Secretary of State for Scotland kept the Scottish Grand Committee sitting for 26 hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member did."]—on the plea that he could not afford to delay the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill for another day. Does not the proposal to extend the Whitsun Recess make nonsense of our having been kept there all that time, instead of having adequate discussion at a reasonable time of day?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I would not say it was my right hon. Friend who kept the Committee sitting. I should say that the responsibility lay elsewhere for keeping the Committee sitting so long. The

reason my right hon. Friend wanted consideration of the Bill to be concluded was so that we could make progress with it. I do not think that that is very much affected by the extension of the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Lewis: The Leader of the House has said that he has discussed the business for next week through the usual channels. Is he aware that apart from the official Opposition the largest opposition now is the independent Conservative Party? Can he say whether or not the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke) and the independent Conservative Party have been consulted and, if so, whether they have agreed the business for next week?

Mr. Usborne: In view of the fact that on 3rd June the United Nations is sitting in full session to discuss the possibility of rewriting the Charter which was evolved at San Fransisco, and that the United States Secretary of State has apparently been saying that the voting arrangements need complete changes, is there any possibility of this House having a debate before then to discuss this very important subject?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I will discuss the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when he returns from abroad, but I do not see any chance of a debate on it before Whitsun.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I asked a question a moment ago of the Leader of the House, and now I wish to address a question to you, Mr. Speaker. We know your prerogatives, and we admit that you honourably carry out protection of the rights of back benchers, particularly of minority groups in the Opposition. It is for that reason that the Liberal Party, which is small in number, is given —and rightly so—certain rights and privileges. What I want to ask you is: what is the position of a large, declared party of about eight members, larger than the Liberal Party, which has officially appointed a leader, when it is not given any opportunity to discuss the business arrangements? Is it not right that either the Leader of the House, or, with respect to you, Mr. Speaker, you yourself, should see that those rights are dealt with in the same way as are those of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know of any parties but the three which are recognised in this House. I am aware that there are, in all parties no doubt, differences of opinion, but I have never heard it suggested that any group inside a party should be entitled to what is called "a usual channel". Until I observe any active attempt at suppression of those groups I do not think it my duty to intervene.

ADMIRAL SIR DUDLEY NORTH

The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, with permission I will now make a statement on the question raised by several hon. Members regarding the circumstances which led to Admiral Sir Dudley North's relief as Flag Officer, North Atlantic, in 1940.
After careful study of all the papers, Questions and debates concerned with this affair, I am bound to say that there does not seem to be any difference as to the facts of the case. The orders that were given and the signals that passed backwards and forwards are on record. It has been suggested that there should be a new inquiry into the facts, but the facts are not really in dispute. The question at issue is the interpretation that should be put upon these facts and the wisdom and justice of the decisions reached by the authorities at the time.
I must recall to the House that the period was one of perhaps the most acute danger that has ever beset this country. The Battle of Britain was at its height, the French fighting power had collapsed, and grave uncertainty existed as to whether the powerful French fleet might pass into enemy hands, which, had it happened, would have turned the whole balance of naval power against us.
It is only fair to recall the memories of those anxious days in order to put ourselves in the position of those who had to make the great decisions. In the circumstances of that period, the authorities concerned formed the view that they needed a different naval commander at Gibraltar. I must insist upon the constitutional rights of the Admiralty, and, indeed, of all those in positions of supreme responsibility, to choose officers in whom they have confidence at moments of supreme crisis. Any other system would be dangerous in peace and fatal in war.
A careful examination of the records has led me to the conclusion that, so far as concerned the passing of the French ships through the Straits of Gibraltar, Admiral North cannot be accused of any dereliction of duty. He obeyed his orders as he interpreted them and some blame must rest on the fact that they were not drawn with complete clarity. Nevertheless, in those dangerous days the Admiralty felt that they required at Gibraltar an officer who would not content himself with strict adherence to his orders, but who would be likely to show a greater degree of resource and initiative in an emergency.
I am convinced that, while we all have a deep understanding for Admiral Sir Dudley North in what must have been a great disappointment to him at the height of his career, it is essential in the Services to maintain the principle that the authorities of the day should have unrestricted discretion in deciding to whom they will entrust high command.
I very much deprecate the use of the words "dismiss" or "remove" or, still worse, "sack". These are phrases which are quite inappropriate to these difficult decisions in conditions of war. Many officers of high rank in all the three Services were superseded in those harsh days by others who were regarded as more likely to be able to cops with the problems and burdens that confronted them.
In my view, a general distinction must be drawn between two things. On the one hand are definite charges of negligence and the like or reflecting on an officer's honour. Any charge of this kind against Admiral Sir Dudley North could not, in my view, be sustained, and I believe that is generally recognised. On the other hand, the Board of Admiralty have the right and duty to decide on broad grounds whether an officer possesses the qualities necessary for a particular command.
These qualities are not easy to define. One of them is the confidence reposed in an officer by his superior. The degree to which an officer possesses these qualities can never be the subject of an inquiry. It can only be a matter for the judgment of his superiors. And I must add that the country owes a great debt to the whole Board of Admiralty, political and professional, as it was constituted


in that dark period which led to ultimate victory.
I am satisfied that Admiral North was not the victim of Service or political prejudice. He has nothing with which to reproach himself. He had forty-four years of long, distinguished, and devoted service in the Royal Navy, and there is no question of his professional integrity being impugned.
In these circumstances, I do not see that anything is to be gained by an inquiry regarding facts that are well documented and undisputed.

Mr. Gaitskell: Whatever our views may be of this matter, I am sure the House will agree that it would be very undesirable if it were to become in any way a party issue. May I ask the Prime Minister whether his statement really implies that he sees no reason for an inquiry because the facts are not in dispute and that he has endeavoured, in what he has said, nevertheless, to make a fair judgment for the whole country on this particular matter?

The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the way in which he has posed it. I have tried to make a balanced statement and give what I think is a fair view, after very careful inquiry myself. I hope that it will be taken by Admiral Sir Dudley North, the House, and the country as a whole, as a fair account, as best I can make it, of the situation and of the position as it really ought to be summed up.

Commander Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he personally consulted the five very senior officers who have interested themselves in this matter and, if so, whether they agreed with the statement that he has made?

The Prime Minister: After I had time to study carefully this whole question, I thought that it would be not only courteous to the Admirals of the Fleet concerned but also very helpful to me to invite them to come to see me, which, I am glad to say, they were very willing

to do, with the exception of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Chatfield, who was not well enough to come but sent me a memorandum expressing his views. I saw Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cork, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope, Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Cunningham, and Admiral of the Fleet Sir Algernon Willis. While the decision and the statement that I have made are entirely on my own responsibility, I should like to express my gratitude to these distinguished officers for having, at my request, assisted me with their advice.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement is welcome in so far as Admiral North is absolved from any charges of dereliction of duty? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider some form of amende honorable so far as restoring him to the substantive rank which he held as Commander-in-Chief, Gibraltar?

The Prime Minister: I will look into that matter.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation of very many people for his having taken the time and trouble personally to go into the whole matter, which, I think, will be a source of great satisfaction to everybody concerned?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would it be a fair summary of the right hon. Gentleman's statement to say that this admiral obeyed his orders when he should not have done so?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have tried to make a balanced statement. It would be easy to try to summarise it into an epigram, but I think that it would be unwise of me to do so. I would rather leave it where it rests and hope that the whole Navy and all those who care so deeply about the Service will accept it as a settlement of a matter which has long troubled them.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 21st May.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

Clause 2.—(TELEVISION DUTY.)

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, at the end to insert:
Provided that the payer of duty at the said standard yearly rate may elect to pay the same by two half-yearly instalments each of ten shillings and that, if he so elects, the licence shall be valid if the first such instalment is paid on or before the issue of the licence, but, unless the second instalment is paid on or before the expiry of six months after the issue of the licence, the licence shall then cease to be valid until the second instalment is paid.
This Clause provides that on every television licence, that is to say, a combined receiving licence for both sound broadcasting and television, which costs £3, there shall be charged what is called
a duty of excise, to be known as television duty 
at the rate of £1 a year. The Clause provides that licence will not be valid unless that Excise duty has been paid.
The Amendment proposes that a licence holder shall have the right to opt whether he shall pay that Excise duty in two instalments and we suggest in the Amendment that, as long as the instalments are paid, the licence will be valid for the six months' period and will then cease to be valid until the next and final instalment has been paid. This, therefore, is a modest proposal, the sort of homely reform for which I am sure all of us hope to be responsible during our membership of the House.
In putting this proposal forward, our aim is to help those sections of the population whose well-being is already gravely endangered by a steady rise in the cost of living. A number of subsequent Amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends are also designed to help the same groups of the population. We have specially in mind, of course, the disabled and the old-age pensioners, and it is our view that the retirement pension at present is inadequate to meet the rising prices resulting from the economic policy of the party opposite.
This morning I looked up the change in the cost of living since the right hon. Gentleman's party took office. If we take 16th October, 1951, as 100, with the price change based on the Interim Index of Retail Prices and the Index of Retail Prices we find that on 12th March, 1957, the figure was 123. If I may put it in a different way, it means that a £ note which was worth 20s. when the Labour Government went out of office is, after nearly six years of Conservative administration, worth only 16s. 3d. During that period we have also seen the combined television and broadcasting licence increased by £1 in 1954.
Our contention is that, on top of all this, the extra £1 television duty which the Government are proposing to impose will have a very serious impact on people like old-age pensioners. We suggest that the only proper thing to do in the circumstances is to lighten the blow that they will feel by providing that the tax or duty can be paid in instalments. I hope that the Government will consider our suggestions very carefully and sympathetically.
I should like the Government to bear in mind that already licence holders are paying approximately 2d. a day for holding a licence. That may not seem very much to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to some hon. Members, but that payment is being made in addition to the general cost of maintaining a television receiver.
4.0 p.m.
This morning I checked up on the current prices of television receivers and I found that the 17-inch set, which is now the most popular model, costs approximately £65. The hire purchase provisions for buying a set of that kind are that a 50 per cent. deposit of £32 10s. has to be paid and then 24 monthly payments of £1 9s. 9d. If the set is bought on credit terms it means that £6 10s. deposit has to be paid with 38 weekly payments of 33s. 10d.
It is clear that expenditure of that kind, which many old people will have strained all their resources to meet, is a serious undertaking for them, and this further addition of £1 will make their position even worse than it is. Moreover, there is the expense involved in installing a television receiver, and also the high costs of maintenance. I think it is true to say that if the cathode ray tube in the receiver


fails, the cost of replacing it is between £12 and £20.
We say that in view of the heavy expense to which many people are put already for what is, in a large number of cases, almost their only source of recreation, it is unfair to add even a further £1 to the burden which they are having to sustain. If, however, the Government can convince the Committee that a further charge of £1 a year in the form of Television Duty is necessary, we maintain that the Government should be very reasonable indeed as to the method of exacting that £1. That is why we propose that it should be possible to pay it in instalments. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find it possible to agree to this modest reform that we are proposing.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The effect of this Amendment would be to enable a payment of £4 to be made, not at once, but in two parts, one of £3 10s. and the other of 10s. The effect is not, as the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) realised, to reduce the total amount of the payment, but to enable it to be made in two unequal instalments, the first instalment being £3 10s. instead of a full payment of £4.
In the first place, the result would certainly be a substantial increase in the administrative costs of collecting the duty, because it would be necessary for the reminders which are normally sent out annually to be sent out twice a year. The second reminder would be unconnected with the necessity for the renewal of the licence. There would also inevitably be a certain loss of duty by reason of the collection in two instalments instead of one. So I suggest to the Committee that unless there is a really strong case for reducing the payment which is to be made at one time from £4 to £3 10s.—and that is the issue— it is not a change which, on other grounds, we ought to make.
The people who are called upon to pay £4 at one time, as the Bill stands, or £3 10s. as the Amendment stands, are those who are already, in the ownership of a television set, liable to incur substantial lump sum payments from time to time or—I emphasise this alternative

—on whose behalf substantial lump sum payments in respect of the running of a television set are incurred by other people.
The necessity of replacing the cathode ray tube was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and the estimate I have been given of the cost of doing that practically coincides with his. It would mean a single payment at one time of some £15 in order to continue to enjoy the amenities of the set. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the initial deposit to acquire the set can hardly be less than £6 or £7 and, of course, the viewer has already been paying the £3 licence fee in one sum annually.
I do not think that it can be sustained for a moment that persons who, at the moment, are paying for television sets, or on whose behalf television sets are being paid for, could reasonably be expected to make a lump sum payment of £3 10s. but could not be expected to make a lump sum payment of £4. That being so, the case for the Amendment falls.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I intervene only to put a question to the Financial Secretary arising out of what he has said. I do not want to comment on his general remarks, because I am sure that others of my hon. Friends, on both Front and back benches, will want to comment on those.
First, about the cathode ray tube. We are all aware that it is a very heavy expense, falling from time to time and at unpredictable seasons on the owner of any television set. It would be out of order to pursue the hon. Gentleman's reference to price, though he will be the first to realise that if the Government had taken action as the result of the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the Supply of Electronic Valves and Cathode Ray Tubes, it might be possible to buy these a little more cheaply, and it might be more tolerable for people in difficult circumstances to meet the extra levy which the Government are now imposing.
Now I come to my main point. The Financial Secretary enunciated correctly the effect of this Amendment, if it were accepted and written into the Bill, as meaning that there would be not two equal payments but one payment of £3 10s. and the other of 10s. He will realise the difficulty in which the Opposition were placed, namely, that it would


have been out of order for us to move an Amendment to the Bill to propose that the licence fee and the Television Duty should be aggregated, and then that the aggregate sum should be divided so that it could be paid by equal instalments.
In the light of the problem, the total annual payment will come to be regarded as a single thing. People will not ask how much of it represents a Post Office licence and how much a Treasury impost. They will know that they have to pay £4. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman implied, that it would have been better if we could have proposed an Amendment suggesting that there should be two equal payments of £2, but that would have been out of order. It would even be out of order, Sir Charles, for me to argue the case now, so I will not do that.
If, therefore, the Financial Secretary will say that the Government will agree to look at this point, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment. I do not ask for a commitment, only for an undertaking to come back at the Report stage with legislation to enable the £4 to be divided into two instalments. In that way there need be no further debate, and we could thereby save the time of the Committee, which the Lord Privy Seal told us this afternoon he would like to see done so that hon. Members can get away for two weeks at Whitsun.
If the hon. Gentleman cannot give that assurance, we shall have to continue debating what is not an entirely satisfactory Amendment, but one which, however, raises wide issues. There are many families which help old people to maintain their sets, although in some cases the licence duties are paid by the present owner of the set and not by the donor. But once the set has been given—in many cases an old, second-hand set—the donor is left not only with the responsibility for running charges, some of them substantial repairs, though less than the cost of a cathode ray tube, but is left, also, with the responsibility for paying the Post Office licence.
We are not asking the Treasury to give up any revenue. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, therefore, will look at this point more widely than the Amendment, and will consider between now and Report an Amendment to give effect to what we are really seeking to do.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I, for one, agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). There is no doubt that the Financial Secretary's answer was, in its way, complete to the Amendment on the Notice Paper; the difference between £3 10s. and £4 is not very large. What we were concerned about when we tabled the Amendment—and we put it down in this form to comply with the rules of order— was the fact that people have to pay the £4 in one lump sum, and although many of those who own television sets can find that money without difficulty there must be thousands of people to whom finding this £4 out of a weekly wage in a lump sum means stretching themselves when it is an addition to their other expenses.
I do not think that the mere fact that television sets are expensive and that repairs to them are also expensive items in a family budget is one which we ought to consider as a satisfactory argument, or one which goes to the whole root of the matter. Most of us either have a car or know someone who has, and the same difficulty arises over the Road Fund Licence for a motor car. Although the repairs to motor cars are expensive and the cars themselves are expensive, it was realised that to pay the year's licence in one lump sum might be a considerable burden on many people, and the State in its wisdom, and, in my view, very properly, decided that people should either pay in one lump sum or should pay half-yearly or quarterly.
It is true that to reimburse the State for the extra expense which this entailed, an addition was made to the cost of the licence. Nevertheless, it has worked extremely well, and I ask the Chancellor, whom I see in his place, to look at the question of the television licence between now and Report and to see whether some action can be taken, if not this year then next year.
Undoubtedly, this licence fee may be increased. I imagine that it will be increased as the years go by, particularly if we have in office the present Government or one like it. In that event, the cost of living and the value of money will change to such an extent that this fee will become derisory and will have to be increased. I ask the Chancellor to look at this matter and, if he can do something about it now, to do it; and, if not,


to see whether some arrangement can be worked out before the Finance Bill next year.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I rise to support my right hon. and hon. Friends in what they have said. The whole of this Television Duty is mischievous, ill-conceived, thoroughly bad and thoroughly ill-advised.
Television is coming to be one of the most popular forms of public entertainment. The Chancellor takes credit to himself for having abolished Entertainments Duty on sports and the living theatre, and we applaud him for having done so, but he should not ignore what he is doing in television. Television is the most popular and most universal form of entertainment in this country. Let us consider what the Chancellor exacts from those people, many of them old and of small means, who derive all their entertainment from television.
First, he exacts a large measure of Purchase Tax from them when they buy their television sets. He then exacts a fee of £3 for an annual licence. On top of that he is imposing an Excise duty. This is adding impost on impost on impost. It may be camouflaged and concealed by one form of exaction being designated with a name different from that of the other forms, but the effect is that the old-age pensioners, the handicapped people, and those who live at home and cannot get about are being penalised by three separate and distinct forms of taxation before they can begin to enjoy their television.
I regard this mischievous duty as the thin end of the wedge, because it may be increased later. It is thoroughly bad in principle. A fortiori, therefore, I support the Amendment in order to do something to ameliorate the hardship which is being inflicted on these elderly people. It is notorious that it is the least well-off sections of the community who depend for their entertainment entirely on television.
The argument which the Financial Secretary gave us was lame, ill-conceived and highly technical. He knows perfectly well what a great hardship it is on these people to have to pay £3—now £4—a year. He told us that the only effect of the Amendment would be that the £4

would be split into £3 10s. and 10s. We do not want that kind of high-falutin technical argument from the Financial Secretary when the Lord Privy Seal is appealing to us to get on with the business so that we can give his supporters two weeks' holiday at Whitsun.
As my right hon. Friend said, this is quite simple; there is no distinction between the £3 and the £1 except a superficial distinction in name. It is, in fact, an exaction of £4. The answer to the Financial Secretary's argument, and one which I prefer, is that the £4 should be divided into two; and that would mean £4 to be paid half-annually, semi-annually as the Americans call it. That would mean paying £2 every six months, a total of £4 a year. I hope that the Chancellor who, if I may say so, has a more humane and broadminded outlook, will accept this suggestion so that we may get on with the business.

Mr. Victor Yates: I support the Amendment. I am very disappointed by the answer given by the Financial Secretary; it was a cold answer about a vital matter affecting, in particular, old-age pensioners throughout the country.
I cannot believe that the Financial Secretary is quite as cold as he appeared to be when he dismissed the Amendment by saying, "Of course, if they can pay £3 10s. they can pay £4", as though it did not mean anything at all. Every shilling which is extracted from an old-age pensioner at present is the cause of great hardship to him. If the question were only that of the difference between paying £3 10s. and £4, in my view it would still be a question of great hardship to the old-age pensioner.
I ask the Chancellor to consider the plight of a number of old-age pensioners who have television sets. I know of a number of old-age pensioners in the City of Birmingham who are enjoying the privilege of a television set because their families have collected the money and provided one for them. Recently, I have had to consider what can be done to assist old-age pensioners who are quite unable to meet the cost of repairs, to which my right hon. Friend, the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) referred. I recall a recent case where old-age pensioners had a television set provided by


the family, and the set broke down. The repair bill amounted to £19. It was quite impossible for the old people to pay it, as they had nothing but their pension on which to live, and there was another whip-round in the family to pay it. But the cathode ray tube broke down again, so I wrote to the Chairman of the West Midlands Electricity Board asking what could be done in conjunction with the manufacturers. I am glad to say that he took the matter seriously and obtained a substantial reduction on the second account.
This duty of £4 is a heavy burden. I agree with my hon. Friend that were it possible and in order to divide it into two payments, that would be more satisfactory and I hope that we shall have more consideration given to the matter. I do not agree that it is right to impose this duty at all. It is wrong and is unfair to old-age pensioners and others suffering disability. But if the Government say that it must be so, and that they must pay, cannot a way be found to ease the consequent burden upon old-age pensioners?
One of the greatest problems of today is loneliness in old age. Whatever may be said against television, it has provided companionship for old people and we should be careful not to remove that benefit. I ask the Chancellor to see whether something can be done to ease this burden if he feels that he cannot exempt these poeple from payment. If the right hon. Gentleman could do something to ease their position he would earn the gratitude of this House and many thousands of people in the country.

Mr. George Chetwynd: We were all disappointed at the unsympathetic reply of the Financial Secretary. The Government did not have to put on this £1 to recoup themselves for what they are losing in Entertainment Duty because of the concessions made there. It was within their power not to do so. If the Government have deliberately taken this way to raise extra money, it is up to them to make this new impost as bearable as possible for those with limited means.
It is true that many old-age pensioners who depend solely on their pensions, with perhaps a National Assistance grant, have television sets provided for them; or they

managed to get one while they were at work. But now they are retired, with a reduced income, any addition to the licence fee, or maintenance costs, is beyond their means to pay. I do not accept the argument that if one can afford a television or if a television is provided, automatically one should be in a position to pay the extra £1. I do not think that a just argument.
The effect of the £1 increase may be twofold. It will stop many people who have television sets from licensing them again, or else they will run the risk of using a set which is unlicensed and perhaps they will have to pay a fine in consequence. Secondly, it will deter many people from acquiring new television sets and that is not very desirable. Television is now a necessity, though I often think we should be paid for looking at it rather than have to pay a licence, but that is my own opinion. Many people look upon a television set as permanent company, particularly those who are home-fast, and the aged sick. Therefore, the Treasury should give more consideration to the question of easing the burden imposed by having to pay this new licence fee.
There are precedents for easing the burden on the old. A concession was made to old-age pensioners when the Tobacco Duty was increased. They were given the right to purchase tobacco at the pre-increase price. Something on those lines should be done in this matter of television licences. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) mentioned that payment for motor car licences can be split into four. I do not think it beyond the bounds of possibility for the Treasury to work out a simple system whereby a television licence could be paid for half-yearly, although, naturally, it would be better not to put on the £1 increase at all. But if that must be done, it would be better if the licence could be paid in two instalments of £2, or in one instalment of £3 10s. and another of 10s.

The Chairman: Mr. Hale.

Mr. R. Moss: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I ask your advice? Two of my hon. Friends have already said that they are opposed to the imposition of this duty. Am I correct in thinking that you would not allow a


speech on the general aspect of the Television Duty during the debate on this Amendment, which assumes that the duty is imposed, and refers to the way in which it may be conveniently levied?

The Chairman: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Moss: This Amendment is a narrow one and concerns the method by which the Television Duty is to be levied. I take it that an argument against the duty altogether would be out of order during the discussion on this Amendment?

The Chairman: Yes. This Amendment deals with the manner of collecting the duty.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am not sure that I am filled with gratitude at the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss), who has secured a Ruling from you, Sir Charles, which will limit the observations I was about to make. I much prefer the normal course, with you ruling me out of order after I have said the things I wished to say, and in future I hope that we shall revert to that course. Nevertheless, there are certain things I wish to say which, I apprehend, are in order.
I rarely find myself in disagreement with my right hon. and hon. Friends, and even when I do I rarely express my disagreement. But in Oldham there are few old-age pensioners who have television sets. I do. not know what is the position the prosperous Midlands where there are very high wages, but in Oldham there are low wages and unemployment. Old-age pensioners in Oldham can see television at the hostels provided under provisions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). But if they wish to see television normally, they must visit the homes of other members of their family or their friends who have television sets.
Nor do I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd)—a place where I once mounted a gun—that television is a necessity.

Mr. Chetwynd: I said that it was for some people. It is not for me.

Mr. Hale: I agree, it is not a necessity for me either. I limit my viewing ol television to about 5.30 p.m. on a Saturday, when I look at the sports results. I do that only because of the happy event of Leicester City being the champions of the Second Division of the Football League this year and of Oldham Rugby Football Club winning the championship of the Rugby League last week; and I am sure that the whole Committee would wish to felicitate me and to compliment me on those achievements in which vicariously I have taken part.
I wish to refer to the somewhat unfortunate speech of the Financial Secretary. He has the merit of consistency. It was this sentence, which he uttered on 7th May, which brought me early into the Chamber today. Then the hon. Gentleman said:
 The larger the outlay which the owner of a television set is called upon to pay, the smaller will be the proportion of his annual outlay represented by this duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 809.]
I wonder whether the Economic Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Financial Secretary ".] Since the noble Marquess left the Government there has been a certain amount of reshuffling while I was abroad and I have not become completely au fait with the situation. We all respect the integrity and ability of the Financial Secretary, but I am not sure that he has sufficient empirical knowledge in these matters. Here is a very important new industry, a very important new contribution to our social life, something which I think, on the whole, is probably all to the good.
4.30 p.m.
I hope that it is not out of order to say, in a single sentence, that television sets are made in Oldham. The great firm of Ferranti has two large factories in the Borough of Oldham. It is, after all, a social industry, the sort of industry we all wish to encourage. Television is precisely the sort of thing we ought to want to see in every house in the country. If it is not a necessity, it is a deprivation to people who see that others have it when they have not.
The social pressure is an important social pressure. We talk in these days of keeping up with the Jones's, but keeping up with the Jones's is a rather unfortunate way of putting it.

Mr. David Jones: Why the Jones's?

Mr. Hale: They are a very large family. I should not have thought that in referring to this large family I should have singled out any one member of it for any question. In any event, it is a flattering remark about the Jones's. The Jones's have got it. They are the people at the top of the tree, and it is the other people who have to try to keep up with them.
But the real pressure is not that of keeping up with the Jones's. It is the pressure of the ordinary, decent man who wants to see that his children have got the same facilities as other people's when the children come back from school and say, "The Jones children saw the performance last night", that they saw His Royal Highness giving his talk for children, and his children had not been able to see it.
The pressure upon that parent is very severe. It is precisely of the kind which I always understand of the man who has been to a public school and who wants his children to go to the same school. I think he is wrong. I think he is silly. I think that there may be a tiny bit of snobbishness in it, but it is a decent, human emotion.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I regret to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but when I was in the Chair on an earlier occasion the hon. Member said that he was going to interrupt himself in parenthesis. He did so and very soon came to some semblance of order. I ask him to do the same now.

Mr. Hale: I am most grateful to you, Sir Robert, for your admonition and I appreciate that you said that you did it with reluctance. I was about to call myself to order and to refer to the question—what is it that we are discussing?— of television sets.
It is a great pressure, but the Financial Secretary says, "Of course, it is only another 'quid'. What does it matter?" It is just as well to remember all the burdens which are imposed on the parent who is anxious to see that his children get the chance of seeing television which is now afforded to other children. What are the burdens imposed by this Government? First, there is a restriction of hire

purchase, which means that he has to deposit a much larger sum than he would in normal circumstances. Secondly, there is the refusal to refer the cathode ray tube industry to the Monopolies Commission, though everyone knows that the cathode ray people are taking £7 or £8 of privateering money out of every one who buys a set. Thirdly, there is Purchase Tax. Fourthly, there is the licence.
Having done all that, the Government now come forward with this iniquitous tax, which it would be out of order to say is iniquitous because at the moment we are only discussing the method of payment. Perhaps it would be in order to point out that, of course, our innate respect for the rules of order, our desire to conform to the rules, makes it almost impossible for us to express with emotion the things we want to say on these matters, and that we are rather restricted on a narrow Amendment which can only symbolise the more beneficent acts which we wish to take.
Smith wants to keep up with the Jones's, and he saves the money. I say with absolute sincerity that in the discussions I have had with constituents recently I have been quite surprised at the number of problems that arise out of hire-purchase agreements for television sets. I have been surprised at the number of people who never really knew what they were signing. Although the Committee may not feel sympathy with people who sign agreements without ever having made sure that they can keep them, one knows that these things do happen.
In the days before the war high-pressure salesmen used to call at the door and persuade people to buy carpet sweepers before they had a carpet. While they were paying instalments on the carpet sweepers they could not afford to buy a carpet, and, by the time they had paid the instalments and started to pay for a carpet, the carpet sweeper would not work. That is how hire purchase worked.
It really is not good enough to say that an extra 20s. is not the straw that will break the camel's back. In point of fact, the camel's back is strained at the moment by all these burdens. Thirty-one years ago, when I entered into the bonds of holy matrimony, which are still preserved, I am glad to say, I bought a house. I built a house and I borrowed


£500 on it. The building society's instalments were 17s. 6d. a week, and that 17s. 6d. a week was a very, very serious burden.
It became a question of how regularly we could pay it. In fact, I remember that the building society wrote to me and asked me to be more consistent. In those days, being less reticent than I am now, I wrote back and said that if consistency was the only thing they desired I could achieve that with ease, and I did not pay for three months. Then we had a further discussion in which the society made it clear that that kind of consistency was not satisfactory and that further payments were desired.
When my first child was born we were really frightened about what the doctor's bill would be. It was only three guineas when it came, but it could have been the sort of thing that could have made me go "subbing". It is not good enough to say that if these people can afford to pay already, they can find another 20s. I find people in Oldham, good working-class people, signing agreements to pay more in instalments for television sets than I had in 1926 to agree to pay for my house, and it was not a bad home at that.
When one is paying 17s. 6d" 20s. or 25s. a week and someone comes along and says, "We want seven ' quid' extra for a cathode ray tube over and above what it ought to cost," and someone else says, "We want you to pay for the programme," and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Look here, you have stopped going to the cinema and we are going to cut off a bit of taxation from the cinema and tax you for staying at home," I cannot imagine a more evil principle than that.
I should have thought that the foundation of all our life was our home life. I should have thought that this was exactly the sort of thing on which a progressive Government would want to give remissions and not impose increases. I should have thought that they would have said, "We have something here which is of great value. Here we have a sense of keeping people at home and of restoring the sanctity of family life which is the foundation of Britain and of all civilised nations. Here we have a chance of seeing

the children round the television sets, with their mother and the father." But the Chancellor says, "No."
Finally, if the argument of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is allowed to pass unnoticed, then there is no case against not putting another £1 on next year and another £1 the year following. Indeed, there may be a stronger case for his argument, because he will say that these people have managed to pay for another year. The more they pay, the less it costs. The more they pay, the more evidence of their ability to bear a burden, and on this assumption the Government can go on putting on taxes.
I therefore beg the Chancellor to consider this matter anew and consider it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, in the light of our intentions, which are honourable, rather than in the light of the Amendment, which is narrow. It is a generous act of the Opposition to give the right hon. Gentleman a chance to recover some of the measure of popularity for the Government which they have lost in the last few weeks. A generous Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the opportunity we offer him, seize time by the forelock, and make a concession which would be one of importance in most of the homes of the country.

Mr. Ron Ledger: The Financial Secretary seems to be under a distinct disadvantage when he says that a person should be able to pay £4 if he can pay £3 10s. Obviously, he looks upon members of his own Front Bench as a good cross-section of the people from the point of view of their ability to pay. If he believes that, the people of Romford are unique, because most of those who have written to me about the Budget have mentioned this particular duty. I shall not repeat what they have had to say about the value which they get for their money, or the remarks which they have made about the value of the entertainment, which has, if anything, decreased, particularly since the introduction of I.T.V.
At last, the Financial Secretary appears to be showing some interest in what I am saying, so perhaps he now intends to accept the Amendment. People in Romford certainly regard 10s. as rather a lot of money. I am bound to admit, and


possibly the Financial Secretary agrees, that 10s. is certainly not worth as much as it was under a Labour Government, but I should have thought that that would have meant that it was all the more precious today because it is worth so much less, and that he would, therefore, have given even closer consideration to the way in which he filched the odd 10s. or the odd £1 from the people of whom I am thinking.
People with families often find it difficult to go to the pictures. They work on a stringent budget, and they have worked out very carefully that the cheapest method of entertainment which they can get is the television set. To these people 10s. is a considerable amount of money. It is a silly argument to say that if one pays a bill it does not really matter how much the bill is, so long as it comes within 10s. of what one is able to pay. That is a ridiculous argument.
I have had a close look at this question of the sale of television sets, and I find that the statistics show that more and more people are going in for schemes which will help them to avoid having to pay large sums of money. Those are maintenance and insurance schemes which cost them a few shillings a week, and they find that they have to go in for those schemes by which they pay 2s. 6d., 3s. or 4s. a week because they simply cannot find even £1 in cash. I think that the Financial Secretary has not the slightest idea that many families have so little money that 10s. in one payment is an impossibility over and above their weekly commitments.
I think that if the Financial Secretary took a closer look at the methods by which television sets are being sold through maintenance and insurance companies he would come to the conclusion, which many of us have come to, that the industry is bound to suffer if an increased burden is put on those who want to purchase television sets. He put forward the argument, which I think that he himself did not really believe—it was just a reply to the Amendment and a way of passing it over—that it might mean having to remind people twice that they had something to pay for their licences. I suggest to him that if it is true, as we suggest, that people will have difficulty in finding an extra 10s. and certainly an extra £1, he

may find that the next time licences become due and the increased amount has to be paid, some people will leave it as long as possible before paying, and take a chance.
You may find some difficulty in collecting the money and the cost will increase. If it does, you have only yourself to blame. You are going to make it harder to collect this £1 because you are not going to accept any Amendment to make it easier for the people to pay.

Mr. Douglas Glover: I did not know that you, Sir Robert, were going to collect anything.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ledger: I join with my hon. Friends in saying that it is chiefly the working-class families who will suffer. Some of my hon. Friends rather limited the problem when they continually referred to the old-age pensioners. Those old-age pensioners who have television sets will certainly suffer, but I think that the problem is much broader than that, and that millions of people will find it more difficult to keep their television sets as a result of this increase of £1. Of course, the Government, by imposing it, will help us to a certain extent because they will prove, as the Financial Secretary proved this afternoon, once again very clearly, that the Government are mean when they want money and do not mind where it comes from, provided that it does not come from those who can best afford it.

Mr. D. M. Keegan: I wish to intervene for only a few moments. I apologise to those who support the Amendment for not having been here earlier, but I was detained outside, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for intervening without having heard the Amendment proposed.
I think that probably what most of us are concerned about is that any increase in the charge made on television sets by way of licence or duty will tend inevitably to increase the number of people who are tempted not to pay licences and will result in rather larger numbers than hitherto of what, I believe, are referred to as pirate television viewers. I have already heard an estimated figure of about 200,000 such viewers and I should not like that figure to go any higher.
I hope that the Chancellor will earnestly consider making an allowance, either by means of this Amendment or in some other way, for people to pay duty on television sets by instalments. If he cannot do that, will he consider with the Postmaster-General whether some publicity can be given to the purchase of savings stamps over a period, amounting to the £4 now necessary, and trading these stamps in at the end of the year for the total value of the television licence and the duty? I hope that that suggestion will meet with approval.

The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I believe that television viewing is a menace to our children and a time waster for grown-ups, but is the ideal entertainment for old people. A retired couple on pension, who have received their post-war credits—a very acceptable, though, perhaps, modest lump sum—may well devote them to the purchase of a television set. I believe that the Financial Secretary has a strong case where the majority of people are concerned, but I do not think that his case is so strong when it comes to old people, to whose interest I will limit my remarks.
The movements of the old are probably circumscribed by health and age. The ordinary forms of entertainment are not always available to them. The football match, in British weather, is not particularly attractive to them, nor is wandering out on winter nights to the cinema. They are, therefore, justified in expending their post-war credits on a television set, which is their most ideal form of entertainment. I think that younger people would be ill-advised to embark on that type of investment.
There must be thousands of elderly people who have put everything they have into such a purchase and are looking forward to years of quiet, leisurely entertainment; and there was real point in the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to the old adage about something being the last straw that breaks the camel's back. There is a lot of economic validity in that. He quoted his own experience, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides can corroborate it with theirs. One sometimes enters into a rather large commitment. One may spend a lot of money on furniture, or on repair jobs

in the house. If, after that, one is faced at the wrong moment with a demand for even 10s., it is sometimes more difficult to find it than it was to find, possibly, £50 a few months earlier.
To ask pensioners to find £4 when the finding of it presents a real difficulty means doing them a great injustice. I warmly support the pleas made by my hon. Friends to the Chancellor to reveal —I am sure that he has the ability—a willingness to look into the administration of this new duty. The mechanics are not insoluble. With good will this could be done, and I cannot believe that, in such a small matter, the Chancellor could not find the will to try to do something for these old people for whom I have spoken and who, I believe, have a very strong case.

Mr. Charles Grey: I join with my hon. Friends in supporting this Amendment, and want to say how sorry I was to listen to the cold manner in which it was received on the Government Front Bench. I rather thought that when the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor looked at the Amendment he dismissed it altogether as being of no importance, but after listening to my hon. Friends I am sure that the Government will agree that there is substance in what has been said.
I agree that this duty concerns only a certain part of the population, and we must accept the fact that, whether we like it or not, the £1 will be imposed. We have to accept that as a principle now. Could there have been a means of deciding among those who have television sets how they would like to pay the money, I am sure that most wage earners, though not all, would say they would rather pay it in one sum. The type of person who cannot pay in that way is the old-age pensioner. I am sure that the Chancellor will agree that the nation has been perturbed about the plight of the old-age pensioners, who are now campaigning for an increased pension. To suggest, as is being done now, that to have their viewing they should pay an extra £1 in one sum makes the whole of that campaign ridiculous.
Due consideration should be given to those who have to measure out the weekly amounts they pay to certain people. I speak from personal experience. I had to do it after 1926, when I worked in the


mine and earned 30s. a week. It was not at all an easy task to measure out weekly payments. These people are paying sums weekly to others, and it is an utter impossibility for them to find the extra £1 in one lump. I would, therefore, ask the Chancellor to look at this again, and see whether it is possible, even if the people cannot be let off altogether, at least to let them pay by instalments. If the Chancellor does that, he will earn the gratitude of all old-age pensioners.

Mr. Moss: As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) has said, this Amendment assumes that the duty will be imposed. I am opposed to the imposition of the duty, but this Amendment is concerned merely with levying it in a manner convenient to many of those who have to pay it. There has not been a single argument advanced in support of this duty which will bear independent examination, and I am led to the conclusion that the Chancellor has chosen to impose it merely because he has found another method of raising revenue from a popular form of entertainment. It follows from that, I think, that in future the duty may be increased. Therefore, the total amount to be paid will be increased, and if a convenient method of levying the duty can be found it should be found now, when it is being first imposed.
The Financial Secretary has used the most peculiar argument. Although I agree with other hon. Members that in his remarks today he put paid to this particular Amendment, he used a most peculiar argument about the effect of this duty on those who will have to pay it. In the Second Reading debate on 7th May, he began by saying that the amount of duty was small. He went on to discuss the annual cost of running a television set, and concluded that that cost, including the licence, was £10—or 4s. a week. He went on to say that the tax of £1 would be only 10 per cent. of the annual running costs. All that is very nice mathematics, but the inner logic of the argument is related entirely to costs.
5.0 p.m.
If I pay £60 for a television set, the annual cost of running it is one-sixth of that and the extra tax will be 10 per cent. of the annual cost of running it. What is the point of that argument? The proper

approach is that if I want to spend a fairly substantial initial sum upon the purchase of something like a television set, I consider whether I can afford to have it, and whether I can afford to run it once I have bought it. I do the same if I buy a car—and I require a car in a constituency nearly 600 square miles in extent—but I must consider whether, having bought the car, I can afford to run it.
The result of an extra payment should be related not to the initial cost or the running costs, but to the capacity to pay. The Amendment is obviously concerned with people who have marginal incomes, and in respect of whom any increase in their obligations is an increase which they may not be able to meet. For most people that is true of other things, as well as television sets. For instance, it is true that in the buying of a house mortgage charges may increase. One has to consider the mortgage charges in relation to one's income, not some sort of percentage, when one is buying a house.
On the occasion to which I have referred, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) the Financial Secretary finally said:
 The larger the outlay which the owner of a television set is called upon to pay, the smaller will be the proportion of his annual outlay represented by this duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 809.]
That does not get us anywhere. The Chancellor said that he was prepared to discuss these matters in Committee. I took that to mean that he would consider them sympathetically.
We have to consider the spirit of the Amendment in relation to the capacity to pay. This duty will in many cases be paid during the season of festivities at the end of the year, when many other payments fall due. For that reason, the Chancellor might consider some method of having it paid in two instalments rather than in one fell swoop at that time of the year. For instance, that is the time of the year when I have to pay the tax on my car and when I have to pay for the radio and television licence. I am not saying that everyone has to pay at that time of the year, but many people do, and, added together, these burdens form a formidable sum.
The main argument in support of the spirit of the Amendment is the fact that the increased duty will fall upon people


with marginal incomes. Those sections of the community who depend on smaller incomes will find it very difficult to meet this increased charge, or at all events will find it much more difficult than if the Chancellor found a way of splitting the payment into at least two instalments.

Dr. Horace King: This is a very narrow Amendment, and we could have passed from it an hour ago if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had listened to the reasonable suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) very early in the debate. I am in sympathy with what has been said about the claims of the old folk, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity of examining their position when we discuss later Amendments.
However, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was right when he said that most of the old folk are not concerned with television sets because they are too poor to buy them. There are millions of people far too poor to be concerned with anything that we are discussing on this Amendment, or indeed with this new tax. By all means, let the right hon. Gentleman be an "Iron Chancellor", but I hope that he will not be a stubborn and obstinate Chancellor, and that he will note that in addition to the representations which have come from this side of the Committee we have had a very grave statement from an hon. Member opposite, in a brief intervention.
For two or three minutes I want to examine the arguments of the Financial Secretary. He argued that there was no burden in the tax in view of the high cost of television sets and the large instalments that have to be paid in hire purchase. If he had used that argument to show that his Government were concerned with the racket in cathode tubes and were proposing to do something about it, that they were concerned with the fact that high Purchase Tax makes television sets expensive, and that their own policy makes television a far more expensive proposition today than it was in the past, one might have some sympathy with what he said.
The general argument is that television is such an expensive luxury that it does not matter if extra costs are added, and that there is no burden which requires

alleviation by splitting the payment into two parts. I was interested in the meaner arguments of the Financial Secretary. My right hon. Friend said that no money was involved. The Financial Secretary thought differently. He objects to splitting the new tax into two because it would mean increased administrative costs—one more notification would have to go out to licence holders and the cost of that would have to be paid for—and he went on to say that the tax would produce less income this year or in any year if we collected it in two halves. That means that the Treasury is dishonest and that it wants to continue collecting the whole annual payment from some people who would not make the annual payment if it were in two instalments.

Mr. Hale: And to fake the public accounts.

Dr. King: The Treasury wants to collect from people who might die during the year and who would thus not pay the second half. The Financial Secretary wants to get the full annual amount from all television viewers whether they use the television set for the whole year or not. I agree with him that the difference between paying £3 10s. in one instalment and 10s. in the second instalment is not very important. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend suggested that between now and Report the Chancellor might look at other ways of solving this problem. The new tax might be collected in the second half of the year, so that the instalments would be £3 and £1.

Mr. Hale: There is always the possibility of considering other forms of revenue, because the argument of the Financial Secretary indicates the desirability of putting a tax on yachts instead of television sets, because the bigger the expense the smaller the outlay—

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: And the Government are all at sea.

Mr. Hale: —and the Government are all at sea. Such a proposal might even induce my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shaw-cross) to complete the arduous journey from the Temple to Westminster.

Dr. King: We are not arguing for the splitting of the tax into £3 10s. and 10s. but for dividing the; payment of it into two equal instalments.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: This has been a most disappointing debate from the point of view of the Opposition.

Mr. Glover: Hear, hear.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman is not yet a Member of the Opposition, although our ranks are gradually being swelled because of divergencies on Government Benches.

Mr. Glover: The quality of the speeches from the Benches opposite have not only been deplorably low but were reeking of hypocrisy.

Mr. Greenwood: I will not comment on either the good taste of that remark or upon whether it was in order. The hon. Gentleman confined himself to making a purely obstructive intervention on a point of order. He might have raised the general level of the debate if he had had the courage or the enterprise to take part in it.
This is a very modest proposal. It does not embody any deep-rooted political principles or fine points of ideology. I hoped that Government supporters, apart from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Keegan), might lend their voices to support the case that we have been deploying. A large number of Conservative supporters outside the constituency of Nottingham, South will view their papers with some distaste tomorrow morning when they find that the Conservative Party has been so backward about supporting the modest proposal that we have made.
When I listened to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury I thought at first that I detected some glimmer of sympathy for our point of view. He argued that it would have been much better had it been possible to divide the payment into two instalments of £2. When my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) first suggested that we might table an Amendment upon those lines, we sought to do so, but we found that that would not be within the rules of order. Therefore, we had to do the best we could.
We should have liked to equate the payment of this licence to the payment of rates or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said, to the payment of the Road Fund licence. That is, of course, out of

order for us to do. If the Government will give us some encouragement upon this point, even that they are prepared to consider this suggestion between now and Report, or an undertaking that they will do everything they can to make a concession of this kind on the occasion of the next Finance Bill, we shall view the whole problem in a very different light.
The glimmer of sympathy which I thought I detected was obviously not there, because we had the fantastic argument from the Financial Secretary that the more expense a person has to bear the more able he is to incur still more expense. That will be a most impressive example when it appears in the Labour speaker's handbook as showing what Tory reaction can mean. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that Marie Antoinette was a Radical compared with the Financial Secretary.
We still hope, in spite of the very discouraging remarks that we have heard from the Financial Secretary, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been sitting there in great ease for well over an hour, has had time to ponder this problem and will be able to give us some message of hope, and so avoid our having to summon about 200 Conservative Members from other parts of this building where their attention is apparently at the present time engaged.

5.15 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I sympathise with the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) in the disappointment of the Opposition. Having listened to the debate I can understand it. The idea that we should divide this payment into two parts must have had a certain superficial attraction about it, but when we examine the arguments the case is clearly untenable.
The Amendment really suggests, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary pointed out, that we divide the payment into one payment of £3 10s. and another payment of 10s. That is all there is to argue about. It has nothing to do with old age because there is nothing about old age in the Amendment. We shall come to another Amendment in which old age is referred to, and that question can then be debated. I rather agree


with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that it is unrealistic to talk about old people who are living only on their pensions buying television sets or paying either £4 or a £2 instalment. We had better be realistic about this matter. That idea is remote from the circumstances.
I will confine myself simply to discussing the Amendment. I can see little advantage in dividing the payment into £3 10s. and 10s. There might be a case for arguing that the duty or the Post Office licence should be divided, but that is clearly out of order and is not relevant to the Finance Bill. In the circumstances I rather agree with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) who said that the Financial Secretary's speech had really put paid to the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: rose—

Mr. H, Wilson: The Chancellor's answer is not good enough. At the very beginning of his speech my hon. Friend

the Member for Rosendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) admitted quite frankly that the idea of £3 10s. and 10s. was not a very good proposition, but that it was all that we could put forward because of the rules of order. I suggest that the Chancellor might say that he will consider this matter with a view to bringing forward a proposition on Report to divide the £4 into instalments of £2 each. Then we shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment. It was not enough to say that the Financial Secretary put paid to the Amendment; we will put paid to it by withdrawing it if the Chancellor will give us that assurance.

Mr. Thorneycroft: If I attempted to do that my Amendment would be just as much out of order as is the one that we have been discussing.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 161, Noes 213.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[5.17 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Albu, A. H.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mason, Roy


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grey, C. F.
Mayhew, C. P.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R. J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Messer, Sir F.


Benson, G.
Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Moody, A. S.


Blyton, W. R.
Hannan, W.
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hastings, S.
Mort, D. L.


Bowles, F. G.
Hayman, F. H.
Moss, R.


Boyd, T. C.
Healey, Denis
Moyle, A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mulley, F. W.


Brookway, A. F.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holmes, Horace
Oliver, G. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Houghton, Douglas
Oram, A. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Orbach, M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Owen, W. J.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoy, J. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parkin, B. T.


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, John


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pentland, N.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Popplewell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Janner, B.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Cronin, J. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Probert, A. R.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Rt. Hon.A. Creech (Wakefield)
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, G.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Redhead, E. C


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reeves, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kenyon, C.
Reid, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
King, Dr. H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)
Lawson, G. M.
Ross, William


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Ledger, R. J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fienburgh, W.
Logan, D. G.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Finch, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Snow, J. W.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.




Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Weitzman, D.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.
Woof, R. E.


Swingler, S. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Tomney, F.
Willey, Frederick



Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tlilery)
TEIXERS FOR THE AYES:


Usborne, H. C.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mr. J. Taylor and Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.


Viant, S. P.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Douglas


Aitken, W. T.
Gough, C. F. H.
Maude, Angus


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Gower, H. R.
Maudting, Rt. Hon. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mawby, R. L.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Green, A
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Arbuthnot, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Ashton, H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Atkins, H. E.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Neave, Airey


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Harmer


Barlow, Sir John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Barter, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Oakshott, H. D.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harvie-Wait, Sir George
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, R. G.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bishop, F. P.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Partridge, E.


Black, C. W.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Body, R. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitman, I, J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holt, A. F.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hornby, R. P.
Pott, H. P.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Brooman-White, R. C.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bryan, P.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Profumo, J. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Howard, John (Test)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rawlinson, Peter


Campbell, Sir David
Hurd, A. R.
Redmayne, M.


Channon, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hyde, Montgomery
Renton, D. L. M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Robertson, Sir David


Cooke, Robert C.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shepherd, William


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Keegan, D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Dance, J. C. G.
Kimball, M.
Speir, R. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kirk, P. M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Lagden, G. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Deedes, W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Storey, S.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lloyd,Maj.Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farey-Jones, F. W
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Teeling, W.


Fell, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Temple, John M.


Finlay, Graeme
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fisher, Nigel
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Foster, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turner, H. F. L.


Freeth, Denzil
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Glover, D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Godber, J. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.







Wade, D. W.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Mr. R. Thompson and Mr. Hughes-Young.


Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)



Wall, Major Patrick
Wood, Hon. R.

Mr. E. C. Redhead: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out subsection (3).
This Amendment has been put down in the hope of eliciting precisely what this subsection is intended to cover, to try to clear up some of the obscurity in its rather involved phraseology, and also in the hope that we may remove any fears that it will catch any form of licence that was not originally contemplated. The subsection purports to deal with cases where—
the licence fees for television licences are not prescribed by post office regulations.
The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, seems to make it perfectly clear that any form of wireless apparatus capable of reception must be covered by a licence issued by the Postmaster-General, and the regulations made under that Act prescribe licence fees in respect of every type of licence, and certainly every type of licence of which I am aware—the general form of the television licence for the individual, those for hotels, for multiples and the relay broadcasting stations.
The phrase which I have quoted for the subsection appears capable of two possible constructions. First, it would appear to suggest that there are some licences which are necessary, although not prescribed by Post Office regulations, and that I find difficult to believe. Alternatively, it suggests that there are some licences issued by the Postmaster-General for which no licence fees are payable. If it is the latter, then, quite frankly, I do not think it is within the contemplation of anyone that it is right that licences which do not call for the payment of a fee should attract this Excise Duty.
In short, it is difficult to see precisely what purpose it is hoped to serve by this subsection. If in a very involved Clause, and for so simple a purpose so long a Clause, it is possible to dispense with something for which there is no apparent purpose, I would have imagined that it would have been an advantage to get rid of the subsection.
It may be that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to enlighten us, but if there is some type of licence

not within my knowledge, nor, so far as I have been able to discover, within the knowledge of any of my friends, clearly I think we should avoid any possibility of obscurity in future in interpreting this Clause, and this type of licence ought to be defined specifically in the subsection itself. It is for the purpose of eliciting that explanation and that degree of clarification which I think is necessary that I submit this Amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Powell: The reason for this subsection is as follows. The power of the Postmaster-General under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to issue licences covers types of licence not provided for in the Post Office Regulations prescribing licence fees. In other words, the field of possible licences which at present is covered by the Post Office Regulations is not as wide as all conceivable types of licence which the Postmaster-General has the power to issue under the Wireless Telegraphy Act.
If therefore he decided, as would be within his power, to issue a special licence of a particular type to meet a particular set of circumstances, that would fall outside the provisions of this Clause unless the subsection were included. The only purpose of the Clause is to ensure that its ambit will be exactly as wide as the ambit of the licensing powers of the Postmaster-General under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. The hon. Member need not fear that if a licence were issued on which a fee was not payable the duty might nevertheless be payable under this subsection. I can assure him that that is not the case.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is not good enough. When we were discussing Clause 1, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) moved an Amendment to delete a subsection for exactly the same purpose as he has moved this Amendment, namely, to elicit from the Government some explanation of what the Clause meant. The Financial Secretary then spoke for about two minutes in a very airy way. He did not do very much in the way of elucidating what the subsection meant. When I intervened and asked if he would give an


example so that we could see, amidst all the cloud of words he used, what he really meant, he was quite unable to give us an illustration. He gave another dissertation which was almost as obscure as when he first spoke.
I ask the hon. Gentleman now if he will give a simple example of what the Treasury had in mind when it put this subsection into the Bill. Can he let us know the kind of thing it wants to cover by the insertion of this subsection? If he can do that, I have no objection to passing on to the next business, but the Committee is certainly entitled to know what it is doing. The mere fact that the hon. Gentleman said my hon. Friend need have no fear that there is something here that should not be here is not enough. Knowing this Government as I do, I have every fear, even on a matter of a simple obscure Clause such as this. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will insist on having something a little more clarifying than the very obscure and very short so-called explanation which the Financial Secretary has deigned to throw out.

Mr. D. Jones: I should have thought at least that the Financial Secretary would have given us one example of the kind of thing he has in mind. I have not the slightest doubt that he has confidence in himself, but I have not very much confidence in either him or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have recollections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a previous capacity and of some of the things he said.
If there are any dangers or possibilities of licences being issued which are not covered by Post Office regulations, can we not have one or two examples of the kind of thing the hon. Gentleman has in mind? Otherwise, why not explain the Post Office regulations and make it clear to all ordinary people that this is designed to catch every kind of television licence which is issued in this country? To put in a blanket provision of this kind and then, perhaps, catch some unfortunate individual at a later date seems to be quite wrong. I should have thought that the ingenuity of the Financial Secretary would have discovered one example of the kind of thing the Treasury wants to catch.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I wish to support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and my hon. Friends have said. It is incumbent on the Committee to insist that the promoters of a Bill shall explain with due clarity what they want the House to enact.
It seemed to me that the Financial Secretary said that under some powers the Postmaster-General can issue a licence without a fee, but that if he does so that would not attract duty under this Clause. If powers exist for the Postmaster-General to do so, it should be possible to give two or three illustrations of what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mrs. Eirene White: I wish to support what my hon. Friends have said. I am afraid that this is not the first occasion on which the brevity of the Financial Secretary has proved a snare and delusion, because in the end it has taken longer to explain the matter. It would be to the satisfaction of the Committee if he could perhaps descend to our level and explain to us in precise, although simple, language what the Government intend to do.
It has been suggested to me, for instance, that one of the types of television licence to which the hon. Gentleman was referring would be a closed circuit, a private circuit, where there is television reception which is not open to the general public. I do not know whether that is covered here; it may be or may not. I suspect that my hon. Friends are as ignorant as I am on this matter, and we should like to be enlightened, and if there were hon. Members on the benches opposite they also would wish to be enlightened.
What are these special occasions or unusual circumstances to which reference has been made? We have had no indication of them at all. Are they few, or are they many? Can we have some notion how many occasions in the past financial year the Postmaster-General has issued a type of licence referred to in this subsection? We have no idea as to the scope of the television licences with which we are being asked to deal. There are many points on which, before it reaches a decision, the Committee should have a much fuller and more enlightening


explanation than we have so far received. I hope that before we pass to the next matter this point, which has been very properly raised, will receive the attention it deserves.

Mr. Powell: Taking first the question raised by the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West about whether as a result of this subsection television duty would be imposed where no licence fee was payable, if he will look at the governing subsection (9), on page 4 of the Bill, he will see that by lines 34 to 36 that is specifically excluded.
Secondly, the general purpose of this subsection is to ensure that the ambit of television duty under this Clause and the ambit of licences for receiving television under the Wireless Telegraphy Act are coterminous, because it would be foolish if after this Finance Bill were enacted the Postmaster-General exercised powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to issue a kind of licence for which provision was not made in this Clause.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) asked for an example of a kind of licence which the Postmaster-General has power to issue under the Wireless Telegraphy Act but for which Post Office regulations do not exist—at present, at any rate. An example is a licence to receive television and to charge for admission to view it. That is a licence which the Postmaster-General can issue, for which he can make a price for the licence fee, but where the licence fee is not prescribed by Post Office regulations. This subsection deals with that case by providing that the television duty chargeable on such a licence shall bear the due proportion to the licence fee which the Postmaster-General charges in that case.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman could not have gone into even the detail which he has now, which is not much, when he made his original speech. I gather he is telling us that at the moment there is no real illustration and no real reason for the provision, that it is a precautionary measure by the Government in case a Postmaster-General sought at some time to issue a certain kind of licence upon which otherwise the extra £1 might bite unless the words were included. Why could not the hon. Gentleman have said that when he first rose?
The hon. Gentleman might realise that during the proceedings on the Bill—we shall spend many hours on it—he will save himself and the Government a good deal of time if he treats the Opposition, and, indeed, his hon. Friends, with a little more respect and in the realisation that, after all, we take the Bill seriously and want to know what we are passing into law.

Mr. Redhead: In the light of the assurances which have finally been extracted from the Financial Secretary, I shall not press the matter unduly, but I am by no means convinced that we have had a valid explanation. We have, in effect, had a frank acknowledgement that there is no such licence currently being issued of the type which it is intended to catch by the subsection. There is no necessity at all to provide for the one hypothetical example which has been quoted. If it became necessary to issue a licence for a television show at a place where there were payments for admission, there is no justification for applying Excise Duty, because such a performance would already be caught under the residue of the Entertainments Duty which has now become the "Cinema Tax".
I feel that in the Clause as a whole— the subsection illustrates it—there has been an unnecessary degree of pernicketiness in trying to cover all conceivable eventualities, few of which are likely to arise. It would have been to the profit of the Treasury and to the advantage of the part of the Department concerned with the administration of the provision to omit anything from the Clause which was not absolutely essential for the administration of a relatively simple duty. In all the circumstances, if the provision is regarded as so vital for the protection of the Revenue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Redhead: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out subsection (4).
I would again draw attention to the excessively involved character of the Clause. The Chancellor is here seeking to impose a very simple—in terms of administration—Excise Duty of £1 per annum in respect of television licences. It takes no fewer than eleven subsections and 1,000 words to bring about such a legislative effect.
In subsection (4) we seem to have reached the most excessive degree of verbosity and complexity. It is extremely difficult to follow. Precisely what is intended by the subsection? I will quote one phrase in the latter part of the first paragraph:
… where a licence taken out after the expiration of a previous licence is issued so as to expire at the end of a period calculated from that expiration, it shall for this purpose be treated as a licence for that period …
On first showing, what on earth does that mean? When one reads the proviso it becomes even more complex and more difficult to understand.
By dint of great study, I have come to the conclusion that it is intended to make provision in the subsection for the rate of duty which shall be payable in respect of a licence which is issued for a shorter or a longer period than one year; in other words, that the rate of duty shall be pro rata to the standard annual rate. Why that could not be said in more simple terms than those in this long subsection, I cannot understand. I refuse to believe that it is beyond the ingenuity of Parliamentary draftsmen to put it in simpler terms.
While the provision may be capable of ultimate interpretation, it must be explained to the public in much simpler terms in some way or other. I should have thought that it would have been a contribution to efficient and effective administration to seek to frame these provisions in terms which are reasonably intelligible to ordinary men. I hope the Financial Secretary will say that he is willing to look at the matter again to find a more satisfactory and less obscure construction to cover what he seeks to do.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Powell: It would, perhaps, be most convenient if I took the subsection in three parts and dealt first with the first half of the first paragraph. By the preceding subsections the yearly rate of duty has been laid down, and the first part of subsection (4) says that the duty charged shall be the yearly rate applied to the number of months for which the licence is issued.
It goes on to say, however, that where a licence is issued for, for example, fewer months than a year, but runs from one year's end to another, it shall be treated

as issued for twelve months. For example, where a licence has expired and is not renewed until the following year is some way advanced, the second licence is issued so as to expire at the end of a full year from the expiry of the previous licence. In such a case, the renewal licence, although it may only cover nine months, is treated as running for twelve months and is charged accordingly.
The proviso deals with a special case where a licence which would normally be issued for twelve months is issued for a longer period. For example, if a licence in one year were not used for a considerable portion of the year, the Postmaster-General would have the power to issue a licence for the following year at the same rate to cover twenty-one months instead of twelve months to make up for the use which had not been made of the previous licence. In such a case, it would clearly be unfair to levy the duty in proportion to the total number of months, so in that case it is treated as a normal twelve months' licence. That is the effect of the three parts into which the subsection falls.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Cannot we be told the reason for this? The hon. Gentleman has given a very long explanation, but I do not know how many hon. Members understood it. I did not follow all of it. I wonder whether we can prevail on the Economic Secretary, who has a great command of language and an extreme facility of phrase, to explain to us in simple terms just what the provision does. Is it another precautionary measure? It seems a pity to have all these subsections, but I suppose there is something to be said for it, particularly as the Government failed to take obvious precautions at the time of the Suez affair and on other occasions which I should be out of order in elaborating now.
At any rate the Financial Secretary has given us a somewhat longer explanation than he deigned to give in respect of earlier Amendments. Nevertheless, he has left the matter in almost as complete obscurity as it would appear to anyone reading the subsection for the first time. I do not think that the Committee would be doing itself justice if it let the matter pass merely with the explanation that has been given. I can only submit that as the Financial Secretary seems to be quite unable to give us an explanation which we


can understand someone else should do so. The Postmaster-General has been sitting there without saying anything. Perhaps he can tell us what it means. If he cannot, perhaps one of the Whips could be sent for—or even a Law Officer. We are entitled to have one here, but I have not seen one on the Front Bench since we began our proceedings. If that had happened when a Labour Government were in office the whole Committee would have been in an uproar until a Law Officer came along.
There are now three Members of the Government on the Front Bench—all apparently quite knowledgeable upon the meaning of the subsection. We have had an explanation from one which is no explanation at all. I am as completely in the dark now as I was when the hon. Gentleman began his speech. The only thing that we can do is to ask for another Minister to try to explain just what these words mean. The Postmaster-General seems to be feeling very happy. He is smiling. He must therefore know what it means. It affects his Department, and he appears to be quite satisfied. Let us have an explanation from him before we go any further.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I join my right hon. Friend in his appeal, save for one thing. I do not think that we would be any better off if we sent for a Law Officer. I do not think that he would help; in fact, we should probably be more confused after his explanation. I did not understand this provision when I read it, and I cannot understand it now that I have heard the Financial Secretary explaining it. I think that I may understand it when I read the Report of the Financial Secretary's speech in HANSARD tomorrow.
I wonder whether we ought not to change our methods of procedure. Perhaps we ought to receive a "hand-out" when a statement like this is to be given. I do not think that we, as a Committee, should agree to legislation when we do not understand what it is doing or what it is for. I am not alone in this, but, even if I were, it would be right for the Government to explain it to me.
I want to reinforce what my right hon. Friend said about the Postmaster-General. When I said that I did not think a Law Officer could help us, I said it without intending any offence. But

Law Officers are apt to express themselves in terminology which is not readily understood and which needs time for reflection. But if the Postmaster-General will explain the matter, he will express himself in terms more likely to be intelligible to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
I hope that we can get ahead because I have an interest in the Amendments which are to follow, and I am anxious to have an opportunity of discussing them. I do not think that we should be held up by a matter such as this, which, when it is properly explained, may turn out to be non-controversial after all.

Mr. Denis Howell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would help considerably if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose job it is to explain Government legislation, stopped standing outside the precincts and came in and sat on the Front Bench in order to fulfil his task?

Mr. Willey: I appeal to my hon. Friend not to try to persuade him to do so. He is the last person I should send for. He spent much time trying to explain food matters to me. He made them more obscure, and I regret to say that he often misled me. Again, I found it necessary to read HANSARD for the following day in order to see what he had been trying to say. This is a question of legislation, and we must be sure that what we approve is something of which we approve. It is as simple as that.
As the Postmaster-General has courteously consented to adorn the Front Bench, why cannot he now tell us what he thinks the provision means? We can then check his explanation against that which we have already had and against the words which we are asked to approve. If he will do that immediately, we might be able to proceed to the Amendments in which I have a particular interest.

Mrs. Jean Mann: My hon. Friend thinks that when he gets HANSARD tomorrow the meaning of the provision may be clear. I think that when he gets it tomorrow he will find that the statement made by the Financial Secretary contradicts subsection (4). One would expect the hon.


Member to interpret properly what appears to us to be Greek, but he has failed to do so. I take it that his interpretation means that if a television set had not been used for, say, nine months of one year, at the end of the second year that nine months would be added to the twelve months and the owner would therefore have twenty-one months.
The provision states that the television duty:
 shall be calculated at the appropriate yearly rate according to the number of months in the period for which the licence is issued (any incomplete month being treated as a complete month) and where a licence taken out after the expiration of a previous licence is issued so as to expire at the end of a period calculated from that expiration, it shall for this purpose be treated as a licence for that period.
In other words, the owner shall not have another nine months, but the nine months of the dead licence will be treated as having been covered.

Mr. Powell: My explanation was in regard to the proviso to the subsection to which the hon. Lady was referring— and that is the part which she has not read.

Mrs. Mann: I was going to suggest that we might send for a Law Officer, but the Jaw and the legal fraternity thrive on these obscurities. The courts are kept going by them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have not nearly finished with this matter yet. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) was speaking I noticed the Financial Secretary nodding his head. From that I assume that her explanation was the correct one. Unless we are to hear either from the Postmaster-General or the Solicitor-General, who has just come in, we ought to be told whether we are to assume that my right hon. Friend's explanation is the correct one and the one given by the Financial Secretary is incorrect. If so, would it be possible for me to move that the Financial Secretary's speech be annulled and my hon. Friend's put in its place in HANSARD tomorrow?

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I want to ask one or two questions about this matter. It looked at first sight rather more simple than it appears to be on further investigation and explanation. I listened with very great interest

to the hon. Member's exlanation of the preceding subsection. He happened to give us an instance of a licence which was issued on an occasion, but it seems to me equally to cover licences which are issued for a period and, as I see it, under subsection (3) a licence might be issued either for a year or for a number of months. Offhand, I should have thought that if we prescribed a yearly rate and then indicated a unit and subdivided it that would be all right. Why are all the licences chargeable under subsection (3) not to be subject to the same kind of procedure as the licences issued at the standard rate?
6.0 p.m.
We did not get quite enough from the hon. Gentleman to indicate the reasons for excluding not only the particular instance he gave under subsection (3) but any other licence whatever which is issued under subsection (3). If, in fact, it is the case that one can get any licence other than the licence for the single occasion issued under subsection (3), why does one need any provisions of this sort about it?
The hon. Gentleman treated the subsection as containing two provisions and, for the purpose of my next question, I take the second one. The subsection says:
… where a licence taken out after the expiration of a previous licence"—
that is to say, any licence other than the first one—
… is issued so as to expire at the end of a period calculated from that expiration …
Perhaps the answer is in the Post Office regulations, but what does that mean? Does it mean that one has an annual licence or does it not?
… it shall for this purpose be treated as a licence for that period.
Will the Financial Secretary tell us what "for this purpose" means? I find it a little obscure.
As regards the third matter, the proviso, the words are:
… where a licence of a type normally issued for a period of a particular length "—
let us call it an annual licence—
… is for special reasons issued for a longer or shorter period, but the licence fees payable for it are the same as if it had been issued for a period of the normal length …
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to indicate the circumstances


in which one can get for £1 a yearly licence valid, let us say, for two years. We are, I feel, now coming to the meat of the matter, and we might here get a useful tip for the old folk who have, perhaps, been a little hard hit by these provisions.

Mr. Tom Brown: We cannot allow this to go without challenge. We have had an attempt at explanation from the Financial Secretary, but he has not satisfied us. We must, therefore, register our protest. The Government brought along the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, but when he is called upon to give an explanation or interpretation of the particular part of the Bill now under consideration, he shakes his head. Surely, that is not treating the Committee as it ought to be treated. We are entitled to an explanation from the Law Officer of the Crown. [An HON. MEMBER: "He shook his head; he does not know."] Perhaps he cannot explain it himself.
So far as I can understand the Clause and its application to the outside world, it appears to be a cross between a crossword puzzle and a jigsaw puzzle. I beg the Solicitor-General, at least, to attempt to explain to the Committee what it really means.

Dr. King: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) on calling attention to the obscurity of the Clause. I protest against Parliament having from time to time to consider Sections or Clauses in Acts of Parliament which are so obscurely drafted that their meaning is debatable in Committee. I raised this matter some years ago and was told outside the Chamber by an Attorney-General that there is a Section of an Act of Parliament so confused and badly drawn that nobody could decide what it meant, and that, a certain judge having put a meaning upon it, that was the meaning of the Section which now obtains in law.
When I heard the Financial Secretary, I thought I understood what he said. I approve of the Clause if it means what he thinks it means, but it seems extraordinary that we should have an obscure piece of phraseology like this and then, after a member of the Government has said what it means, instead of our putting

his speech into the Bill, we have to be satisfied with the obscure terminology of the Clause.

Mr. Powell: I am much complimented that the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) should wish to see my language enshrined in an Act of Parliament.

Mr. D. Howell: We have it in the Rent Bill.

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked why the words in brackets in lines 33 and 34 are made an exception to the procedure laid down in the subsection. The reason is that where a licence is covered by subsection (3) the duty payable is not fixed on a time basis but is fixed on a proportionate basis. Having settled the duty in subsection (3) on a proportionate basis, one could not go on to apply the time basis prescribed by subsection (4).

Mrs. White: Proportionate to what?

Mr. Powell: If the hon. Lady will read lines 30 to 32 of subsection (3), she will see the proportion there set out.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have intervened more than once already, and I regret having to do so again. I understood from the Financial Secretary earlier that subsection (3) at the moment means nothing but is merely a precautionary measure.

Mr. Powell: A precautionary measure can have a meaning.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon Gentleman indicated that the words in brackets in subsection (4) referred back to a licence issued under subsection (3). We are told that, up to now, no licence has been issued under subsection (3) and nobody expects one to be issued.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman is going a little beyond what I said on subsection (3). He will find that the words in brackets do refer back to subsection (3), and subsection (3) has an effect, even though that effect has yet to be invoked.
The meaning of the words in subsection (4), about which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and other


hon. Members asked, is this. Let us suppose that a licence expires on 31st December but that the owner of the set fails to go for another licence until 31st March. He will then be issued with a licence to run to the next 31st December, but although he will enjoy that licence for nine months only, he will, of course, be charged the full normal fee for it, and, of course, will pay the yearly rate of duty for twelve months. It would be clearly unfair—and the reason for this subsection is to avoid unfairness—that a licence holder who neglected to renew his licence for several months after the conclusion of the year should, for that reason, pay less by way of duty.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman has not quite answered my question. Perhaps I have interrupted too soon. I quite understand the intention he has just expressed; indeed, I think he said the same thing previously. But when this happens and the licence is issued, let us say, at the end of three months for a period of a year starting from the expiry of the previous licence, what is "for this purpose"?

Mr. Powell: Such a licence as that described is, of course, issued for nine months, for the nine months April to December, but it is issued so as to expire twelve months after the previous licence expired, that is to say, on 31st December. Therefore, it attracts both the fee and the duty of a twelve months' licence, as it should.

Mrs. White: Could the Financial Secretary go a little further? We all appreciate that someone who, through negligence, does not pay for his licence at the correct time should not thereby get a benefit, but would the hon. Gentleman make perfectly clear what happens if, for instance, someone goes abroad, closes his house entirely for nine months of the year and does not use his television set at all? Must such a person also pay at the twelve months' rate for only three months' use?

Mr. Powell: I am coming to that, because that is the point to which the proviso relates and the point to which the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) referred. That is the case where a licence is issued carrying the normal fee for a twelve months'

licence, but is neverthless issued to run for more than twelve months. It is a normal licence carrying the twelve months' licence fee, but it is made out for a longer period than twelve months. The Postmaster-General has power to do that, and as I indicated—and the hon. Lady has again mentioned—there are circumstances in which he might possibly exercise that power.
It would clearly be wrong that, because the licence was issued for a longer period, though at the normal annual fee, it should attract more than the twelve months' annual rate of duty. It is to avoid that unfairness that the proviso to the subsection is necessary.

Mr. Redhead: I do not want to be unhelpful about this, because I have appreciated from the outset that there were cases in which the period of the licence would be different from the annual basis, which is the basis for the proposed Excise Duty. It is obvious that some provision has to be made in the Clause for dealing on a pro rata basis as may be appropriate to the particular form of licence.
My chief purpose was to draw attention to what has been abundantly demonstrated in this debate—that is, the obscurity in which the Clause is expressed. If it is obscure to Members of Parliament, who are not unversed in dealing with rather obscure matters of Parliamentary drafting, how much more difficult will it be for members of the public?
I will refer simply to two aspects. In the type of circumstance which the Financial Secretary has outlined, imagine the task of the luckless post office counter clerk who tries to explain all this, with far less ability to grasp the essentials than even the Financial Secretary himself, before a long queue in the post office. Imagine, too, that the Postmaster-General does what he has hitherto done in regard to the Post Office regulations concerning the television licence, a copy of which I have in my hand and three parts of which are full of close print, setting out the vital parts of the existing regulations under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and which, presumably, now have to be supplemented by setting out the provisions of the Clause. It will become a most fearsome document, completely unintelligible to the general public.
I sincerely hope that even at this late stage, having regard to the discussion and the clear confusion of thought that it has induced among Members of the Committee, the Financial Secretary might be willing at least to say that he will be ready to consult his advisers to see whether before the Report stage he can produce simpler phraseology to cover the purpose he has in mind. I invite the hon. Gentleman, even now, to say that he is ready to consider that possibility.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause: —

The Committee proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. R. Thompson and Mr. Hughes-Young were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

6.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The next Amendment to be selected is that in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), in page 4, line 36, at the end to insert:
 or to any licence issued to a person, who by means of a certificate issued by the local authority (being the local authority for the purposes of subsection (2) of the said section one of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949) and produced by the person satisfies the Postmaster-General that he is a handicapped person to whom section twenty-nine of the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which provides for welfare arrangements for blind, deaf, dumb and crippled persons), applies ",
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with it the following three Amendments, that in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), also in line 36, at the end, to insert:
 or to any licence issued to a person who proves in such manner as 'the Postmaster-General may direct that for the week during which the licence is issued he is receiving a retirement pension under the National Insurance Act, 1946, or, if he satisfied the relevant contribution conditions under that Act, would be receiving such a pension, or is receiving an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936";
that in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), also in line 36, at the end to insert:
 or to any licence issued to authorise the installation and use for receiving television broadcast programmes of apparatus in residen-

tial accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which obliges local authorities to provide such accommodation for aged and infirm persons and others in need of care and attention) or in a disabled persons' or old persons' home registered under section thirty-seven of that Act";
and that in the name of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), also in line 36, at the end to insert:
 or to any licence issued to a person, who by means of a certificate issued by the local authority (being the local authority for the purposes of subsection (2) of the said section one of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949) and produced by the person satisfies the Postmaster-General that he is a deaf and dumb person ".

Mr. Charles Grey: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Sir Gordon, concerning the Amendment in the names of myself and a number of my hon. Friends in page 4, line 35, after "Britain", to insert:
 elsewhere than in the counties of Durham and Northumberland or in the county boroughs comprised in those counties".
While I am not questioning your decision not to call the Amendment—I have
no doubt that you will have given it careful thought—I was wondering what advice you could give. The folk in the North-East have a sense of grievance at the grave injustice meted out to them over the past year. We have attempted to obtain satisfaction by questioning the rather stubborn Postmaster-General, and we have continued the campaign for quite a while—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot deal with this point at the moment. The position is that the Amendment has not been selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and there is, I am afraid, no opportunity for debating it now. It occurs to one that there might be a possibility of raising the question to which the hon. Member refers on the Adjournment.

Mr. Grey: Cannot this matter be raised on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot give an undertaking now about what would be in order when discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. H. Wilson: While we understand that at this stage, Sir Gordon, you cannot say what will or will not be in order and thereby bind whoever occupies the Chair,


surely, as the Amendment has not been selected—it is entirely within the discretion of the Chair—it would be reason able for my hon. Friend to assume that this and a similar but rather broader; Amendment in the name of my hon Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), in page 5, line 4. at the end to add:
 but shall not apply to those areas which are not yet covered by commercial television ",
which, I understand, is not being selected and which is designed to deal with the same purpose, could be raised when discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." While we understand you cannot give a Ruling on that, Sir Gordon, it might help if I were tc suggest to my hon. Friends that they might have a good chance of keeping in order on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" and enabling the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) to be discussed.

The Deputy-Chairman: Although I have sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman says, he will realise that I cannot prejudge the debate. I might not be in the Chair at the time.

Mr. Edward Short: While I realise, Sir Gordon, that it would be unusual for you to tell us why the Amendment has not been selected, there is here a matter of considerable grievance affecting millions of people which the Postmaster-General has been unwilling to redress. Can we assume, at least, that the reason why the Amendment has not been selected is not that it is out of order?

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss the merits of the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means. All I can say is that the Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. H. Wilson: Surely, it is not unusual, Sir Gordon, to say either that the Amendment has not been selected or that it is out of order. Surely, the position concerning the Amendment is not that it out of order, but merely that it has not been selected, which we cannot question.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is right. It has not been selected.

Mrs. Mann: I am sorry that the;- Amendment in my name has not been chosen. It was put down rather late because it was only yesterday that the Scottish Members realised that there would not be full coverage for Scotland in commercial television. We feel—

The Deputy-Chairman: We have not reached the Amendment in the hon. ' Lady's name.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I understood you to say, Sir Gordon, that the Amendment has not been selected, not because it is out of order but because the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his wisdom, thought that he would not select that type of Amendment. When Amendments are not called for this reason, is it usually the privilege of Members who have put down the Amendments to raise their particular points when dealing with the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? Would I be correct in assuming that the same procedure will be followed in this instance?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think there is any fixed procedure on the matter. The position is that this Amendment is not selected, and I cannot prejudge what will be admitted by the Chair on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. H. Wilson: It is clear that the Amendment is not out of order, and so we shall not be precluded from raising the matter again at a later stage of the Bill. While I would certainly be prepared to command my hon. Friends to take their chance on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and although I understand that you, Sir Gordon, cannot give a Ruling upon that now, I should like to make clear the position of the Opposition upon the matter, for that may affect consideration of the Ruling.
My hon. Friends have made it clear that the reason why they put down the Amendment is that they have no commercial television in that area and that, therefore, they ought not to pay the tax. Some of us who have seen commercial television may think they ought to pay a much bigger tax for wanting to watch commercial television, but it would be out of order to put down an Amendment to increase the tax. However, I should


not like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to believe that everyone on this side of the Committee is necessarily united in thinking that commercial television is such a blessing that anyone who has not got it should have exemption from this tax.
My hon. Friends have many points to make on behalf of that area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has arguments on behalf of more widespread areas farther north, and we hope that whoever is in the Chair when we reach the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" will realise after this exchange of views how strongly my hon. Friends feel about the matter and will give them scope to express their feelings when we reach that Question.

Mr. Edward Evans: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, at the end to insert:
 or to any licence issued to a person, who by means of a certificate issued by the local authority (being the local authority for the purposes of subsection (2) of the said section one of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949) and produced by the person satisfies the Postmaster General that he is a handicapped person to whom section twenty-nine of the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which provides for welfare arrangements for blind, deaf, dumb and crippled persons), applies".

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the Committee that I did suggest that it might be convenient to take the next three Amendments with this one.

Mr. Evans: The object of this Amendment is very clear from its terms. We had some lighthearted moments in our preceding discussions, but I am quite sure that the Committee will consider that this is a most serious and vital matter to a great many people. The Amendment is designed to relieve a body of most deserving persons from an additional hindrance to their enjoyment of television. Although a great many of us are not as ardent fans of television as others here, there are many handicapped people who now regard television as one of their major relaxations.
The persons to whom the Amendment refers are clearly defined in Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, that is to say, they suffer from a major physical disability. That Section 29 describes them as
 persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped.

I ask the Committee to note the precise terms of the definition. They are not persons who are temporarily ill or even severely ill. Their handicap must be so substantial and permanent as to make them eligible for the welfare provisions of the National Assistance Act.
Hon. Members will note that one of the duties laid by that Act upon local authorities which have submitted schemes which have been approved by the Minister is to maintain a register of handicapped persons in their areas. It is pleasing to note that of all the local authorities more than 70 per cent. have voluntarily submitted schemes for the welfare of these handicapped persons. I am quite sure that when the time comes —and I hope it will be soon—when the recommendations of the Piercy Committee-—which has not long since submitted its Report relating to Government grants to local authorities for welfare services-have been considered, every local authority will be able to undertake the duties laid upon them by Statute.
The handicaps of these people are wide in range. They include blindness, partial blindness and deafness, and the handicapped persons include the general category of cripples, spastics and epileptics. They include all who come under the general classification of the physically handicapped. I urge the Committee to try to visualise what so many of these people suffer, their isolation, their loneliness, the inhibition which dogs almost every action of their lives, their sense of being cut off. Just imagine what a great boon it is to them to be able to see television. They are not like us, for we can go out and mix with the wider world, but very many of them are homebound, and many of them, in addition to suffering a major physical handicap, suffer some other disability as well.
It is the duty of the local authority's medical officer to maintain this register. That is one of his functions. So there is a complete list of the people who would benefit from this concession. It does not open the door wide to anyone to claim benefit from it by saying, "I am sick. I am a handicapped man". It does not even extend to those registered at the employment exchanges as disabled, because that register is based on employ-ability. The National Assistance register is based on the need for welfare services.
I am sure the Committee will agree that anything which brings light, happiness, joy, contact with the outside world, to the permanently handicapped must be a beneficent influence. There has for long been a register of blind persons. It was set up under the great Blind Persons Act, 1920. Blind persons have benefited from sympathetic legislation since then. It is relevant to remember one concession to them, the remission of the wireless licence fee. I should have liked, had it been within the rules of order, to have argued the remission of the licence and the duty for these other handicapped people, too, but I could stress that if, in addition to the licence fee, we impose another financial obligation upon these people, we shall be treating them inconsiderately, if not cruelly. The least we can do is to refrain from adding to the difficulties which they already suffer. We must remember that Jarge numbers of the handicapped are homebound or partially so, and that therefore they enjoy much more intensively than we do the contact which television gives with the outside world. It means much more to them. They are cut off from so much that happens around them.
6.30 p.m.
Most of these handicapped people are also in the very lowest income groups. Many of them are on National Assistance. Their earning capacity is either very low indeed or entirely non-existent. Some of them engage in part-time occupations or domiciliary work of some kind or another, but it is work that is ill-rewarded, and, in the great majority of cases, the amount they have to spare with which to enjoy television cannot be stretched. A great number of these handicapped people who come within the terms of the Amendment are people who are right on the borders of indigence.
One of the arguments adduced by the Financial Secretary today was that if a man can afford to buy a television set costing up to £60 or more, he can also afford to pay the additional duty. That argument has been demolished time after time by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and others. We must remember, too, that a great many handicapped people are the beneficiaries of grants from voluntary societies. The

National Institute for the Deaf, of which I am the chairman, last year spent £6,000 in distributing sets. I assure hon. Members that if we had ten times that amount of money we could spend it profitably throughout the country on behalf of these people. When gifts of sets are made by societies or individuals of goodwill, the sets are rarely accompanied with a guarantee that the licence will be paid.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That also applies to rediffusion.

Mr. Evans: To add to the cost of maintenance of these handicapped people is anti-social, cruel and entirely unnecessary. When the Chancellor considers the amount of revenue that he will get from this miserable levy on handicapped people he will find that it does not square with his conscience and his better feelings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) has on the Order Paper an Amendment designed to help the deaf and dumb—a term which is not often used nowadays. I should like to be allowed to say a special word for them in this connection. The deaf are the loneliest people. They are cut off from the spoken word and from the intimate communication with the world of speech, music and the sounds of nature. Very few people realise how completely isolated they are from the normal activities of the social life of our community. They approach the world wholly in visual terms.
Sound radio is of no use to them at all, but they derive tremendous pleasure from the spectacle programmes which are transmitted by the B.B.C. and the other authority. Thanks to the understanding sympathy and enterprise of the B.B.C., special programmes are presented for them. I assure the B.B.C that this privilege is very much valued by the deaf and by those who work on their behalf.
How cruel it is, then, to put even the smallest obstacle in the way of these people who are handicapped and home-bound, and who very often suffer intense pain because of their disability. How cruel to add anything that would make the slightest obstacle to their enjoying the full 'benefit of their sets. I am sure that many of my hon. and right hon.


Friends would like to emphasise what I have inadequately put before the Committee and I urge the Chancellor to look at this matter most sympathetically. He will not lose a great deal of money, but he will create a fund of good will, and he will show that he has sympathy for these people who very much need not only all the good will and sympathy that the general public can give, but all that the House of Commons can afford.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I want to speak in support of the Amendment. As soon as I saw that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) had placed it on the Order Paper, I gladly added my name to it. My hon. Friend is indefatigable in the work he does for the kind of afflicted people that he has described today. When I was Minister of Health he acted as chairman of a committee which reported to me on the implementation of Sections of the National Assistance Act which deal with such people. I adopted the report and brought those Sections into operation. Seventy per cent. of local authorities have chosen to implement those parts of the Act dealing with the welfare of the class of people my hon. Friend has so accurately described today.
I know that Ministers who are dealing with Finance Bills have to reply to Amendments of this kind, though they may sympathise with the objective, sometimes have difficulty in accepting an Amendment because the class proposed to be exempted from taxation is not clearly defined. I do not think that the Chancellor will feel in that difficulty today because, as my hon. Friend has already explained, the class of whom we are thinking can be readily identified. As the Amendment provides, they can obtain a certificate from a local authority stating that they are just this type of person in need of special help from the authority for rehabilitation and general welfare. They can be clearly and easily defined.
The Chancellor is bound to have sympathy with the conditions that so many of these people have to endure through no fault of their own but either through congenital reflex or some injury or disaster. Having that sympathy, I hope that he will feel that he can aid them in this respect. So many of these people

are home-bound and have no substantial income of their own. Many of them are drawing National Assistance. Even those who do not have, of necessity, very small incomes. Yet these people are waging the battle of life in a way which leaves us ashamed of our inadequacy when we see how they carry on.
Two of the finest people that I have ever met I came across in my constituency almost by accident. Here was a man who was terribly injured in the steel works about thirty years ago. Until I happened to meet his wife when walking down the street these two people had subsisted for the whole of that time entirely on £2 10s. a week, which was the maximum workman's compensation that they were then able to receive. Although undoubtedly they had full claim to do so, they had never applied for National Assistance. I had the utmost difficulty in persuading them to do so; indeed, I had to go to the National Assistance Board myself and get it to send an officer round to visit these people before they would even consider taking aid of any kind. Yet that little house was spotlessly kept. The man cannot walk about because he has no legs. He has to sit on the floor most of the time and can only move when he is carried by his wife. Yet he had been scrupulously looked after all that time.
If it is possible for a charitable organisation to supply such people with a television set, surely nobody would expect them to have to pay the full additional charge? I believe everyone would agree that they ought to be relieved as much as possible. We cannot expect the National Assistance Board to do it. At least we cannot instruct the Board to do it, because we have no power to instruct it what sums it is to pay to anyone and, under the Statute, the Board has to make up its mind about what is appropriate. I can conceive of the Board saying that to give one set of persons direct assistance might lead it into a moral obligation to give it to all.
Certainly, however, this Committee must do all in its power to help such people. It has the power this afternoon to relieve them at least of the additional tax proposed, and so I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider those people with all the sympathy of which he is capable. I know the Chancellor has it, because I


remember well the sympathetic attitude he adopted when he was a private Member to the welfare of the war disabled in his own constituency. So I hope our plea today will not fall on deaf ears, and that he will be able to meet our case.

Dr. King: It is a privilege that this debate should have been opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has paid a well-merited tribute to him for a life's work of service, especially to the deaf people of this country. I am glad, too, that my right hon. Friend has paid a tribute to the handicapped people of Britain. Sometimes they shame the able-bodied people of the country by their courage, by their cheerfulness and by the way in which they endure the handicaps which nature has given them.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) shares with me the privilege of visiting the Invalid Tricycle Association, the parents of spastic children and numbers of associations of handicapped children. I am certain that if he were permitted to intervene in this debate he would echo the tributes to the courage and devotion shown by all these people. I hope that, by accepting the four Amendments which we are discussing, the Chancellor will show that he appreciates this group of the community.
I do not think the Committee could object to the payment of £4 in all for television. It could not object to the extra £1 if it felt sure that all the money involved would go to the provision of programmes. After all, £4 is not much to pay for daily entertainment which, in spite of occasional criticism, is of a high quality. But while £4 a year for this mass of sound and vision programmes is something which people in fairly comfortable circumstances can bear, an extra £1 cannot be carried without hardship by the bottom millions of our people, and especially by the groups mentioned in these Amendments.
I would be out of order if I went into details about the lot of the old-age pensioner at present, but I think that this group is the hardest hit in the community, that it is meeting an ever rising cost of living on an inadequate pension, a pension now lower in value than when

first introduced in 1946. I hope that outside this debate the Government will do something, and quickly, for the old-age pensioner.
The Chancellor can help a little this afternoon. He can do so by exempting some of the old-age pensioners from the Television Duty. In the previous debate, the Chancellor gave us our case. I agree that there are few old-age pensioners who would benefit from this concession. Most old-age pensioners cannot afford a television set, but there are lucky ones, who, by the kindness of societies, by the kindness of their relatives, have television sets. Those of us who know such people realise what a great companion television is to them. Those of us who go to old folks' clubs and Darby and Joan clubs know that every penny counts to the old-age pensioner, and that the £1 will be a real burden on them if this Amendment is not accepted. So I hope that we can persuade the Chancellor to relieve them of the extra £1.
6.45 p.m.
As for the handicapped persons, it ought not to need speechmaking to plead their cause. I am certain that any able-bodied person in the country would gladly carry in this Finance Bill any microscopic extra burden necessary to relieve the handicapped, the halt and the maimed, the lame and the blind, from the burden of this extra £1.
When the Minister replies to this debate we may be told that there are technical difficulties involved, that it would be hard for the Treasury to distinguish between one kind of television licence and another. I have never believed this argument when it has been advanced, and it has often been advanced in this Chamber when we have asked for the exemption of, say, school stationery from Purchase Tax or for the payment of post-war credits to small groups of people ahead of their turn.
I want to pay tribute to the Treasury. It contains some of the most superb technicians in the world when it is a question of getting money in. It is only when we ask for money to be paid out, it is only when we seek to exempt someone from the Treasury net, that the cry of technical difficulty arises. I am certain that if we were seeking by these Amendments to impose an extra tax on television for the


blind, there would be no technical difficulty; or if we tried to impose an extra tax on the unfortunate people in the North-East who have been precluded from getting into this debate so far—

Mr. Willey: They are still represented.

Dr. King: If we were trying to impose an extra tax on them, there would be no tax difficulty argument advanced by the Treasury. So this is simply a question of whether the Chancellor has a heart or not.

Mr. Ellis Smith: He must have a heart or he would not be living.

Dr. King: I mean apart from his physiological organ. A paltry sum is involved. Every Chancellor has a few millions to play about with in his Budget, but here we are not talking of millions— we are hardly talking of hundreds of thousands of pounds. In the earlier debate the Chancellor said very few old-age pensioners would benefit by this concession. There are not a great number of cripples, there are not a great number of blind people, there are not a great number of the other categories of handicapped people who would benefit by this concession. Yet it is a concession which would help the old folk in the old folks' homes and in the disabled persons' homes. I have pictures of the excellent old folks' homes in Southampton, and at the moment I have a vision of the disabled ex-Service men's home at Portsmouth run by B.L.E.S.M.A. In each of these cases, television can play an important part, and this is a new tax which nobody here would want to impose on them. At all events, the Amendment would help at least some of the two million old-age pensioners who are looking to the Chancellor for much more than this at the earliest possible moment.
I hope the Chancellor will show that he is genuinely concerned about these groups of people and will sweeten the rest of the debates in this Committee by being generous to those to whom life is difficult and to whom radio and television have brought more comfort and happiness than to anyone else in the community.

Mr. T. Brown: I support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member

for Itchen (Dr. King). I always wonder why it is necessary for the Opposition to have to table Amendments to the Finance Bill to secure a degree of happiness for the unfortunate people of this country. I sometimes wonder whether, when drafting Bills, the Treasury, or the Treasury Bench have any regard to what the effect will be on the unfortunate people.
I plead with the Chancellor to reflect for a few moments while he considers our Amendments. I believe that the greatest joys in life are those which are shared with the unfortunates. Here the Chancellor has an opportunity to ensure that things which he enjoys are not denied to people who are unfortunately placed by being blind, deaf or crippled or by suffering from other afflictions. Surely we have not reached a stage where we shall deny happiness to such people.
I sometimes wonder whether those responsible for the drafting of Finance Bills ever give a single thought to the unfortunates. Whenever I have taken part in discussions upon a Finance Bill, we have been like cripples at a cross, pleading for something to be done for the unfortunates. Why cannot something be done for them with a generous hand? Why cannot the Chancellor say, "We cannot leave these people in the wilderness of loneliness and deny them the happiness and enjoyment to which they are entitled "?
My experience of blind and deaf people is that they find it extremely difficult to live anyway. It looks as if we are now to add to their hardships and worries by denying them enjoyment. While sitting here, I have been wishing that I possessed a fairy wand so that I could wave it and transfer one or two occupants of the Government Front Bench to the homes of some of these unfortunate people so that they could see how the hardships are endured. I am sure that there would then be no need for us to table Amendments of this character.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) spoke about the injured workman—we have many such, particularly in the industrial areas—there came to my mind a man I knew very well who was on his back for 22 years as the result of being injured in the pit. When television arrived, he was provided with a


set by subscriptions raised by the people living around him. It was a boon and a blessing to him, bringing into his life a large degree of happiness and contentment. If he had lived, he could not have afforded this increase.
I know that there are voluntary charitable organisations which do very useful work for the unfortunates. The people concerned respond out of the goodness of their hearts to the call which is made to their inner self to help the unfortunates, and they do it from no ulterior motive. There ought not to be any acrimony or division of opinion about this matter. The Government ought to say, "These are people who may have been crippled in industry, who have been overtaken with misfortunes. We must not deny them a right to a little happiness simply because they have been overtaken by misfortune in industry or some other sphere."
I sometimes wish that I could infuse a little humanity into the Treasury. It seems to be so stereotyped in trying to prevent our spending £100 here or £100 there, and all the while it ignores the effect that its actions will have on the poorer people. I shall be ruled out of order by you, Mr. Blackburn, if I begin to discuss what the Chancellor has failed to do for the old-age pensioners in respect of the basic pension, although we are assured that in course of time—perhaps when it gets a little nearer the next General Election—the Government will come forward and say, "Here is what we are going to do for the old-age pensioners." All the time the pensioners are suffering greater hardship than any other section of the community because of the niggardly and parsimonious policy pursued by the Government.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go into too great detail about the policy of the Government in general.

Mr. Brown: But it is the policy of the Government, Mr. Blackburn, which has led us to table these Amendments. The Government have failed to do what they ought to have done in the Budget for these unfortunate people.

The Temporary Chairman: It is not the policy of the Government in this particular aspect which has Amendments to be tabled.

Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Blackburn. We recognise that it would be straining the rules of order if we were to debate on this Amendment the whole question of old-age pensioners and what the Government have not done for them. I am sure that was the last thing in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). However, it might save a great deal of time, particularly in this debate, if the Chancellor were to tax your patience for two or three moments in order to say that he really is going to do something for these people. We should then perhaps withdraw the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: That may be the case, but I am afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be out of order too.

Mr. Hale: Further to the point of order, Mr. Blackburn. Your predecessor in the Chair said that we might discuss four Amendments together. One of those Amendments is limited entirely to old-age pensioners. It is extremely difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who speaks very movingly on this subject, to argue in favour of a remission on behalf of old-age pensioners unless he briefly gives information to the House about the position of old-age pensioners today. Surely he is in order in saying that old-age pensioners are now receiving so very little that they cannot afford the additional charge imposed by the Clause.

The Temporary Chairman: I am aware that there is an Amendment dealing with old-age pensioners. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is in order in referring to it in passing, but he cannot go into detail about the whole of the Government's policy.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Brown: I have no desire to get at cross purposes with you, Mr. Blackburn. You are a Lancastrian, as I am, and you have been lenient with me. I started with the best intentions to try to persuade the Chancellor to my point of view. He has known me sufficiently


long to know that what I am trying to do is to make him think of the old folk, the unfortunates, the cripples, the deaf and the blind. I want to persuade him if I can.
We all realise that the position of these people is worthy of our consideration. A great amount of work is done by voluntary and charitable organisations, all of them passionately trying to bring some happiness into the lives of people less fortunate than themselves. I am not asking too much in suggesting that the Government should copy some of the, things these organisations do. If they did, the unfortunate people in this country would be much happier than they now are.
I do not need to deal with the question of whether old-age pensioners can live on £2 a week. I do not need to deal with the question of whether they can afford to pay the increased cost of the licence. The admission from the Front Bench opposite on 25th February is sufficient to convince anybody. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance then admitted that the Government did not pretend that old people could live on £2 a week. With that admission from the Government, I can do nothing to add to that evidence from the Front Bench.
I do not know whether the Treasury keeps up to scratch on information about these matters. I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has the task of collecting information, but I do not know whether, when he has collected it, it reaches Government Departments. Has the attention of the Treasury been called to a recent independent investigation into the situation of old people in Sunderland? Dr. R. C. F. Smith, the medical officer of health for the Sunderland Rural Council, says in an interim report on the living standards of old-age pensioners, which is to be presented to the Council in due course:
 All these people rely on gifts of clothing from their relations. Many of them have to eke out a weary existence plagued with the worry of trying to make ends meet.
Those are among the people with whom the Amendment deals. I plead with the Government, for goodness sake let us have no more of this niggardly, parsimonious policy. Let the Govern-

ment accept the Amendment and adopt the philosophy that "The greatest joys in life are those shared with others who are much less fortunate than ourselves ".

Sir Frederick Messer: Strangely enough, I have some sympathy with those who would oppose the Amendment, because I do not like the idea of a lot of indiscriminate concessions being made to people because of their inability to meet what should be their proper commitments. Some time ago I had the temerity to write a pamphlet for an organisation which devotes its activities to handicapped people, and I was very pleased to note that subsequently the Report of the Piercy Committee on the Rehabilitation, Training and Resettlement of Disabled Persons followed lines similar to those of my pamphlet.
My own view is that Amendments of this sort ought not to be necessary, that society is under an obligation to those who, by virtue of any consideration, by virtue of any circumstances, find it difficult to live a normal life. It would not be difficult for us to make moving speeches. Anybody who is engaged in welfare work can easily recount his experiences and make the subject one of urging that concessions should be made because of the pathetic physical condition of these people.
That is wrong. That is not the right approach. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be entitled to say that it is a matter not of the physical condition of people, but of whether they are in a financial condition to pay. The problem will be solved only when society faces its obligations and says that handicapped people, who because of their handicap are unable to earn enough money to enable them to live a normal life, shall be entitled to a handicapped persons' allowance, apart from National Assistance.
National Assistance is something which should be used only in cases where there is temporary need. Originally it was never intended as a continuing payment for lengthy periods. Indeed, it will be remembered that the Blind Persons Act, 1938, which amended previous Acts, took blind persons and their dependants and relatives completely out of the sphere of what was then public assistance. Blind people were entitled to benefit under


local authority schemes. Amendments of this description would not be necessary if we were to do something of that sort.
I think that it is humiliating when a handicapped person has—as old people have to do at the present time—to show some sort of identification to get something on the cheap, old people getting tobacco coupons, cheap or free baths, free transport by the local authority—and then being challenged by somebody. We ought not to want to give these people cheap things because we fail to give them enough to live on.
What we ought to do is to assure them of an income. That brings me to a point which has not been made and which cannot be too often stressed. I shall deal only with the physically handicapped. A physically handicapped person who is registered, can be registered only if he is in that physical condition which prevents him earning his living. I am not now referring to registration under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act. 1944. Under that legislation, disabled people have to be certified by a medical practitioner as not too handicapped to be able to work. That is a different sort of certificate. They are registered rather differently. Those who are registered by local authorities are registered as having been so physically handicapped as to come under the local authority's welfare scheme.
The point to which I wish to draw attention is this. I do not think that it is recognised clearly enough that it costs a badly disabled person more to live than a normal person. Therefore, if we eliminate sentiment, if we say that we know when we see that poor hobbling spastic that he is suffering with every step he tries to take; if we say that we know that when a man or woman, rising from bed in the morning, cannot even dress without assistance unless he or she has some special gadgets, we realise that they need more money.
Indeed, it would not be a bad thing if in one of the Committee rooms we had an exhibition of the gadgets which crippled people need. They need tongs with which to put on their socks and all sorts of other appliances before they can start their day.
I wish to develop the point about the cost of living. There are people who earn

just a little money, who cannot walk very far. They must take a taxi when a normal person would walk. Physically handicapped persons have to pay. They cannot always ride in public conveyances. There are a large number of circumstances where the place to which a person wants to go is not served by public transport. A normal person might be able to walk, but it is hopeless for these people to try to do that.
Reference has been made to the home-bound. They are those who are in their homes but are not completely prostrate. They are not tied to their beds but they have not sufficient physical strength or ability to do their ordinary housework. Whereas a normal person can do it, they have to pay someone else. It is a fact that their physical condition creates a degree of poverty which ought to be recognised as a reason for focussing attention on this problem. If I support the Amendment it is because it is the next best thing. If society has neglected to look after that section of the people, as I claim that it has, we should do something about the matter.
There may be some who say that if the Amendment were accepted what would happen would be that there would be some homes which would benefit from the concession just because in the family was one physically handicapped person. That is one of the problems which arise when we try by compromise to get out of a difficulty which faces us. In our own families what happens when one of the family is less able to bear the strain of life is that everybody conspires to help.
The nation should act like a family. We should endeavour to give not merely the self-respect which comes from an income which will leave people independent of the charity on which they are now dependent. What we should do is to bring into their lives something in addition to just eating, sleeping, breathing and hearing other people's conversation. We should bring into their lives some of that brightness which we can get when we get outside our homes and which is denied to those who are bound with bonds of greater severity than any physical bond—the bond of being a hopeless cripple.

7.15 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: After the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), who has spoken from his wide experience, the Chancellor must feel very moved. My hon. Friend has given a life of sacrifice in order to bring some comfort and help to those for whom we are pleading tonight. Before he spoke I had written down these words—that a good family makes very great sacrifices in order to help the weakest person in it. We as the people who legislate for the community should act as a good family to those who are least able to help themselves.
We ought not to have to ask for concessions to be made on a matter such as television licences for those who may be crippled, blind, deaf or aged. In a State which prides itself on its care and welfare services for those whose need is greatest, these people ought not to be in the position of having to ask for this help. It should not be necessary to make a plea for them; they should be financially provided for.
The blind, the deaf, the dumb, the physically handicapped and the aged live a very restricted life by the very nature of their handicaps. Examples have been given of people who have been crippled for years. I know of miners who have had spinal injuries as a result of which they are not able to get about and to go to watch football or cricket. When television came into their homes they were able for the first time in years to share in some of the enjoyment which they had known before their misfortune.
It costs much more to look after these people than it costs to care for a normal person. They wear out their clothes very quickly. Some need special shoes and other appliances such as those of which my hon. Friend spoke. Sometimes they become crotchety and need tasty little extras to entice them to eat. The cost of all these things mounts up, and to them this extra £1 is almost the last straw. We should not make it more difficult for them to enjoy the simple pleasure of seeing sport and documentary travel features on television. On television they can see places which they will never be able to visit because of their condition; they can enjoy some of the beauty of other parts of the world.
I ask that, in this direction at least, the Chancellor should be prepared to give. He has not been giving much since we started the debate. This concession would not cost him very much. We are often told by Members on the benches opposite when we have debates on old-age pensions that the families of the old people should help. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions has often put that to us. We know that many aged people have television only because their sons and daughters have bought the sets for them. If the licence fee goes up to £4, this means that the cost will be more for the sons and daughters. It is a little bit of extra expense for them on top of running their own homes, and it makes them wonder whether, if something goes wrong with the television, they will be able to make sure that it is repaired.
I suggest that many of my hon. Friends have been very kind to the Chancellor in the speeches they have made on these Amendments. They have pleaded with him and have been very kind and courteous to him. I suggest that this is a Finance Bill in which in some Clauses we are giving many concessions to those who already have. We are asking in these Amendments that he should give a little of it to the folks who have not so much.

Mr. Collins: Stop taking it away.

Mrs. Slater: That is perhaps a better way to put it. In this Finance Bill the Government are giving Income Tax relief to very many wealthy people. They will be giving to those people the opportunity to buy more of the normal things of life. We ask them on this issue, which is not a very big one, to say to those folk for whom we have a very great responsibility, "We are prepared to forgo the extra £1 for the small number of old-age pensioners who come within the category of the Amendments—the blind, deaf, dumb and crippled."
Surely the Government are not going to use the argument that all kinds of difficulties will be involved in exempting these people from the extra £1, which would mean that they are in fact saying that the Treasury either is not able or is not willing to surmount the difficulties which will be presented. That should be the least of the difficulties. Therefore, I add


my plea to those of my hon. Friends to the Chancellor to look favourably on the Amendment and to give to these people the concession which is asked for.

Mr. Collins: I do not view this from the standpoint of asking the Chancellor to give anything but of asking him to change his mind and not to take away. I am sure that every hon. Member in the Committee will agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) that we ought not to be put in the position of having to ask for these things. In our society, people such as those mentioned in the Amendments, handicapped people and the aged, ought to be in a financial position which will enable them to enjoy a reasonable standard of existence. Unhappily, the country has not yet discharged that moral obligation, and therefore we say to the Chancellor, "Please create conditions so that we can say to these people, 'Show us your sores and we will give you alms'." If these Amendments are accepted, as I hope they will be, that is exactly what we are asking the Chancellor to do.
I have spent the whole of my working life in connection with handicapped people, and I can say with certainty that they would not have come here to ask for what we are now asking in their name. That is all the more reason why we should ask it. Those who have come into contact with handicapped people, particularly the crippled and the deaf, know that they are in the best sense of the word the proudest and most independent people there are.
It is only when they are in extremis— and not perhaps even then—that they ask anything of anybody. It is a most pitiful thing to see the brave and gallant way in which crippled and handicapped people deliberately ignore their disabilities and decide to ask nothing of anyone if they can possibly avoid it. By these two Amendments we are asking the Chancellor not to injure people who, in general, have one thing in common. It is that they are poor. If they are pensioners, of course they are very poor, and, if they are crippled or handicapped they are also very poor, and usually not very mobile. Therefore, it is beyond question that if they have television sets, whether provided out of their own resources—which is not very likely—or by relatives or a

charitable society, this extra £1 Excise Duty is going to be a burden.
In the case of elderly people, we know that tens of thousands or even millions of them have not a penny after Wednesday. They do not count their means in shillings; they count them in pennies; and much the same thing applies to handicapped people. Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out quite rightly that a good family makes sacrifices in order that the lot of any crippled or handicapped member of the family will be made lighter. Of course they do. I ask the Chancellor to ask himself what happens in that family when the parents get old or die.
I know of a number of families in my own division where there is, perhaps, a mentally deficient child. 0ne case is that of a man of 45 who will always have the mind of a child who enjoys on television the adventures of "Noddy" rather than some more adult programme. The mother and father are still looking after him, although they are themselves old-age pensioners and would, therefore, also qualify under the second of these Amendments. We have all seen at times and marvelled at the tremendous love and affection which exists in families where there is a child such as that or any particularly handicapped child. When I have seen a mother going about with such a man the thought always arises in my mind: What is going to happen when she is no longer there to help? These people, if they can enjoy television, although they are tied to the home, can nevertheless travel the world, and although it is impossible for them to take part in any sporting activity, they can have a better view of sport than many of the people who attend the events.
I am not going to pretend that most of these people because of this extra £1 will be deprived of their television. I think that the money would be found for them somehow. But that is not the point. I hope that the Chancellor will tell us two things at least when he comes to reply, namely, how much revenue he thinks would be lost if this concession were granted to the handicapped people mentioned in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), and how much would be lost if it were granted also to the pensioners? Let the Committee and the country know the cost, so that if these


concessions are not granted the extent of the Government's parsimony may be known, and the hypocrisy of any statements they might make of sympathy towards the handicapped people and the old-age pensioners. We are merely asking for a measure of justice.
Before the Chancellor replies I ask him to have these people in his mind's eye. If he has ever been to a gathering of deaf people he will have seen the vivacity and joy with which they talk to each other. It is impossible to imagine a livelier set of people. He may have seen a gathering of crippled people, not one of whom has been able to attend without some assistance from a wheelchair or some other appliance, talking together as they do in the organisation of which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham is president. These people are deserving not so much of our sympathy as of our heartfelt admiration, and I hope that the Chancellor will add his little tribute to them by saying that he will accept the Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I shall not detain the Committee for many minutes, but I want to tell the Chancellor a few things about old people, because it is the old people who have been to see me in connection with this matter. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee were very distressed when the old-age pension was not raised in the Budget. I think I am correct in saying that when the Chancellor broadcast on the day of his Budget speech he rather implied—in evading a direct question put to him— that the Budget was not the proper place to increase the old-age pension. If the Budget is not the place to increase the old-age pension I submit that, equally, it would hardly seem to be the place for taking something away from the old-age pensioner.
We have not yet heard the Chancellor speaking about the old-age pensioners. I hope he believes what hon. Members on this side know—and I am quite sure hon. Members opposite also know—namely, that the old people just have not got this extra money. It is not a case of being sentimental or anything like that. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) said that by the middle of the week old-age pensioners

have no coppers left at all. I know that we cannot discuss the cost of living on this Amendment, but I can assure the Chancellor that when a few coppers are added, for example, to the price of bread or milk each week, the old people in Coventry—and this must apply to old people everywhere—just cannot afford to pay those few extra coppers; it really is an impossibility.
I want to read part of a letter which I have received from an old-age pensioner. She writes:
 Do you think the old-age pensioners should pay £4 for their wireless and television licence? I for one, out of many, have a television. My husband bought me a View-master five years ago. As I am an invalid I have not been able to get about for twelve years. Three years ago he was killed going to his work. My grandson lived with me up till last July. Now he is married and buying his house. He used to pay the licence for me. Now it means that the only pleasure I get I shall not be able to afford. I think it is a disgrace. If I pay it it will mean two week's pension.
In all seriousness, and not as a party political point, I suggest to the Chancellor that people in that position must be helped. I have tried various funds and I cannot get any help. The National Assistance Board in Coventry does a very good job and gives help to the maximum of its capacity but, as the Chancellor doubtless knows, its capacity does not include paying for television licences.
Whether we think of this old woman of 72 or of other old people, I very much hope that the Chancellor will not deprive them of something which means even more to them than it does to us.

Mr. Willey: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), I do not anticipate the Chancellor providing for these exceptions; that would be taking too rosy a view of the Chancellor. When he is providing for additional revenue it is unlikely that he will at the same time provide for the exceptions. Now that the Amendment has been moved, however, I expect him to accept its spirit. I agree that the burden was upon us to demonstrate the worth of the Amendments which we are considering, but having done that, I hope that the Chancellor will accept them.
I am sure that he appreciates the work that many of my hon. Friends have done for handicapped persons and aged people.


I say at once that I do not suggest that this matter divides the Committee. If hon. Members opposite have not spoken it is probably because they are concerned about their Whitsun bonus, and not so much because they are unconcerned about the problem which we are now considering.
If the Chancellor is to oppose the points which have been raised in the Amendments he can do so only upon one of two grounds. First, he can argue that this is administratively impossible. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) in this matter, and I hope that the Chancellor will not try to defend his position on that ground. I know that he is always perfectly briefed in these matters, but he must recognise that it is quite possible, administratively, to provide for these exceptions. The exceptions can be identified and defined, and they are permanent exceptions. He cannot say that there is any difficulty on that score. Secondly, he cannot have any financial objections. The loss involved to the Exchequer is not sufficient to upset his calculations.
There are no administrative difficulties which cannot be overcome, and no financial difficulties which would embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. We are therefore faced with the simple political problem. It is a fact—and if the Chancellor rejects the Amendments he does no more than demonstrate the fact—that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have a far greater concern for handicapped and aged people than have Members of the Government. I believe that the Financial Secretary said that he was handicapped. He may be handicapped politically, but I was speaking in broad terms. There is a difference in emphasis in the regard and attention that we pay to the needs of old people and handicapped persons. I am not trying to make an unfair political point. I concede at once that many hon. Members opposite have a deep personal concern about this matter, and support many charitable bodies.
Whatever his views may have been twenty or thirty years ago, surely the Chancellor realises that we can no longer rely upon charity, if for no other reason than that the high level of taxation which has been continued by the present Government means that sources of charity

are not now available on the scale required. We ourselves therefore have to provide for aid to be given to old and handicapped persons.
I agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) said about it being our primary obligation to see that proper provision is made. I am sure that the Chancellor would agree that that provision is not made today. We do no more than set out to provide for meagre standards of subsistence. The need is there. In view of many of his activities I should have thought that the Chancellor had as much experience as anyone of the fact that if need exists today it is amongst this class of person. If there are people living in difficult circumstances today, they are particularly the handicapped persons, and, on occasion, the old-age pensioners. I should have thought that the Chancellor would at any rate concede that there is evidence of need. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham; I do not think that the Amendment would provide for that need.
Much more has been done, but if we express any regard for the handicapped persons and old-age pensioners, this is an issue which we have to face. We are driven to recognise that there is need to take advantage of every opportunity to help them. That is all that we are asking the Chancellor to do. We are saying that he is imposing a charge on people generally. We know that in many cases, particularly in the case of handicapped persons, television sets are provided, but the maintenance, upkeep and charges are borne by the people themselves. In these circumstances, surely it is right and proper to say that, apart from the major question of making proper provision for people less fortunate than ourselves, we should pay regard to and recognise the fact that they are people less fortunate than ourselves, and we should take the opportunity of making this small concession.
I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor will give way on this matter. The fact that he has not intervened earlier probably indicates that he is not persuaded that he should accept these Amendments. Now that the matter has been brought to his attention and now that the condition and circumstances of the old people and the handicapped persons has been stated, I hope that he will give this measure of


his good faith and say, "Whatever I may do later, involving much greater considerations, at any rate I have the power to take advantage of this opportunity to make this special concession to people who are less fortunately placed."

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We have had a fairly full debate on this series of Amendments and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have spoken with great sincerity about the desire to do what we can to look after the unfortunate. In particular, I do not think that anybody could have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) without being moved by what he said. I agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said. It is true that at the end of his speech he indicated that he supported the Amendments, whereas I shall be advising the Committee not to do so, but the hon. Gentleman was entitled to say that. He was doing it as a second best. In fact, the tenor of his argument should be considered by the Committee, that whatever one's sympathy for the aged or infirm, this would not be the right way to help them. That was indeed the tenor of the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
In these Amendments we are asked to exempt from the duty people who are either old or infirm, without laying down conditions as to means. That is the tenor and purport of all four of these Amendments. I believe that an attempt to help these people by relief from Customs and Excise taxation is an inequitable, hazardous and indiscriminate way of trying to give assistance, and I do not believe that it would work. I think that it would cause a great deal of ill-feeling. I concede that it has been attempted in the case of the tobacco scheme. I do not propose to debate the tobacco scheme, but its fiercest advocate would not say that it is not open to criticism by the people closely associated with the working of it.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: How does the right hon. Gentleman relate that argument to the exemptions for radio licences in respect of the blind? What ill-will has been occasioned by that? It has commanded universal approval. It is unlikely that those persons who register under the provisions of the National Assistance Act would want welfare if they could maintain themselves in social life.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman made his speech with a great knowledge of these matters, and he is right to say that in the case of the blind there was an exemption from the licence altogether. If it is held—I am not debating it one way or another—that a television set is essential for the aged, let us face it squarely and take away the licence altogether. That would be the honest way to approach the matter. But to seek to say that there is a wide range of old people and a number of infirm people who somehow should be exempted from Customs duty is not a right or sensible way of dealing with the matter.
I think that the Economist put the point extremely well last week in an article which stated:
 The worst possible way of aiding pensioners would be to give the better-off groups of them special exemptions from indirect taxes, of the sort that the smokers (or alleged smokers) among them get already. Half the families in the country might suddenly decide that their television sets really belong to grandma.
That puts rather pithily the kind of problem we are up against. I would go even further. One could borrow grandma for this purpose because a television set is not tied to the premises. Anybody's grandma would be sufficient for this purpose. When we think of the number of grandmas there are, the Committee will see that any arrangement of this kind would be quite unworkable.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) asked what would the cost be. Were it limited to these two types of people the cost is not an issue and it would be very small. The point about this is that it would be an unworkable arrangement.

Mr. Collins: I asked the Chancellor two questions. One was the cost of the concession to the handicapped, the people mentioned in the Amendment, and the other—a separate question—the cost of the concession to the old people. The cost to the handicapped people is ascertainable. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that?

Mr. Thorneycroft: In either case the cost is negligible. I am not worried about the cost in cases of this kind. If it was a sensible and workable arrangement where, at a small cost we could help, no Chancellor would be concerned


about the cost. My case is that the proposal is unworkable.
The arguments that I have used about the aged people apply equally to the infirm. They could apply to anybody who falls within the category defined in Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948:
 persons who are blind, deaf or dumb, and other persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped, by illness, injury, or congenital deformity or such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Minister.
That wording was for the purpose of deciding the category of persons who could be helped. In that Statute the definition was very rightly cast in the widest possible terms, and any arrangement of this kind would mean that anybody who fell within that very wide category should be exempt from paying this television duty.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) cast the definition even wider to include people who would have been entitled to retirement pensions had they in fact fulfilled the conditions required. In considering matters of that kind we should encounter considerable administrative difficulties, apart from any other consideration. But the whole criticism here is that this would mean that a television set would not go to the poor people we have been talking about, but to people like retired judges and colonial governors. They are the people who would benefit. I have nothing against retired judges and colonial governors, but I cannot think that it is the purpose of the Committee to pass a special exemption from television duty in cases of that kind.

Mr. Edward Evans: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to read the terms of the Amendment. We are referring to those persons who come on the register of the local authority. We cannot imagine retired judges would register as persons in need of the welfare services of the local authorities. It refers to the persons on the register of the local authority for whom welfare services are provided.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Different methods to solve this problem are undoubtedly dealt with in different Amendments. I was dealing, at that moment with the retired person and saying that it is an

illusion to think that if the Amendment were accepted we should be able to help people who are living on their old-age pension and nothing else. Let us be honest with ourselves in this Committee. People in those circumstances are not able to afford television sets, nor the licence. It is idle to pretend that they can do so. Their circumstances are very far removed from that.
Someone said that charity was no longer possible. But I think the evidence given to the Committee is rather to the contrary because I think there are cases where people in those circumstances have had television sets provided by neighbours and friends and the admirable associations which seek to help them. They supply amenities of that kind, and the licence and the 4½d. a week, or whatever the duty amounts to. That is a different category of people from those considered here. Here, as the Economist said, we should be concerned with the better-off people who could afford a television set. I would seriously advise the Committee, whatever it may feel about the need for help, or however hon. Members have been moved by the words of the hon. Member for Tottenham—as I think we all were—to recognise the real purpose of his argument. If we want to help people who are sick or old there are much better ways of doing it than by trying to fiddle about with Customs and Excise duty.

Mrs. White: I think we have all been slightly shocked, if not surprised, by the attitude of the Chancellor towards these Amendments. One must bow to the Ruling of the Chair that they must be discussed together, but the right hon. Gentleman has completely failed even to mention some of the special points raised by my hon. Friends and which were included in certain of the Amendments.
If the Chancellor had been able to indicate to us that it was in the mind of the Government to make a really substantial increase in the retirement pension, even if he was not at present in a position to mention a precise amount—had he given some indication that that was coming in the near future, I am sure that my hon. Friends who put forward the Amendments dealing with old-age pensioners would have been prepared to consider that, but we have had no indication from the Chancellor that Her


Majesty's Government have any such step in view. I think that all of us would be of one mind that really adequate pensions for old-age pensioners would be better than particular concessions. We are not quarrelling with the right hon. Gentleman on that as a matter of principle, but about the practice of this Government.
Even if one were prepared to grant that, however, I believe that there is still a strong case for making some gesture towards the handicapped people about whom the greater part of our discussion tonight has been concerned. I ask the Chancellor the straight question: holding the views which he has enunciated tonight, why has he not put down an Amendment to the Finance Bill to withdraw the concession from blind persons? If he really holds the views which he has expressed that such special concessions are bad public policy, it was his public duty to take the opportunity of this, his first Finance Bill, to put that matter right. Why has he not put in a Clause showing that he believes it was a mistaken act on the part of his predecessors and that he now wishes to withdraw that concession? That is the only logical conclusion to the opinions that he has expressed.
If he is prepared to continue the radio licence concession to blind persons without alteration, surely it is equally logical for my right hon. and hon. Friends to suggest that there are other handicapped persons to whom a television set has come as a great blessing. All of us would agree that to many handicapped people television has brought a new interest and a new joy in life. I have a very special sympathy for deaf persons. Sometimes I think that they are much more cut off from ordinary life than are the blind. For them television has made a very great difference. There are a large number of deaf people. In the six North Wales counties and the adjoining County of Cheshire there are 500 registered deaf persons. Many of us have known the very great pleasure which television has brought to persons who are so handicapped.

In dismissing in a summary fashion all these Amendments with very little differentiation between them, the Chancellor has really paid no attention to the force of the arguments employed on our side of the Committee concerning handicapped persons in particular. I repeat that if he believes what he says he should take immediate steps—there are still further stages of the Bill and I dare say that it could be done within the terms of the appropriate Financial Resolution—to withdraw the concession which is now made to blind persons. The arguments in respect of television for other handicapped persons is based entirely on the same principle.

The right hon. Gentleman tried to deride the speeches of my hon. Friends in this matter by suggesting that we could all go around borrowing grandmothers.It is true that every one of us has had a grandmother —

Mr. Thorneycroft: Two.

Mrs. White: Yes, that is correct. Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that we should go round borrowing spastics? Does he suppose that people would try to defraud the Revenue in such a very undignified manner? I do not think that even he would suggest such a thing.
I suggest to the Chancellor that even if he is not able to accept all these Amendments which we have been obliged to discuss together he should be prepared to make some concession, at least for this particular group which my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) very properly said is a very easily recognisable group and a small group. It is one in respect of which I submit there would be no administrative difficulties. It is clearly no use arguing any longer with the right hon. Gentleman Therefore, we shall bring this matter to a close and support our Amendments in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 179.

Division No. 115.]
AYES
[8.0 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Benson, G.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Albu, A. H.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Blyton, W. R.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Balfour, A.
Boyd, T. C.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Brockway, A. F.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.




Chetwynd, G. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Clunie, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Redhead, E. C.


Cove, W. G.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cronin, J.D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lawson, G. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Ledger, R. J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Fienburgh, W.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Finch, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Eric
McGhee, H. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


George, Lady Megan Lioyd(Car'then)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Swingler, S. T.


Gooch, E, G.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Tomney, F.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mason, Roy
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mayhew, C. P.
Viant, S. P.


Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, D


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hamilton, W. W.
Moody, A, S.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hastings, S.
Moyle, A.
Willey, Frederick


Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Healey, Denis
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oram, A. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Owen, W.J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Holmes, Horace
Palmer, A. M. F.
Winterbottom, Richard


Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woof, R. E.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Paton, John
Zilliacus, K.


Hubbard, T. F.
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, N.
Mr. Short and Mr. J. Taylor.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Howard, John (Test)


Alport, C J. M.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hurd, A. R.


Ashton, H.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)


Atkins, H. E.
Fell, A.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Baldwin, A. E.
Finlay, Graeme
Hyde, Montgomery


Balniel, Lord
Fisher, Nigel
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Barlow, Sir John
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Barter, John
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Freeth, Denzil
Keegan, D.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Glover, D.
Kershaw, J. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Godber, J. B.
Kimball, M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Kirk, P. M.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Goodhart, Philip
Lagden, G. W.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gough, C. F. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, H. R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Black, C. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Leather, E. H. C.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Green, A.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Longden, Gilbert


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gurden, Harold
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Channon, Sir Henry
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hay, John
McCallum, Major Sir Duncan


Cooke, Robert C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Cunningham, Knox
Hirst, Geoffrey
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Currie, G. B. H.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maddan, Martin


Dance, J. C. G.
Hornby, R. P.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Horobin, Sir Ian
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.







Marshall, Douglas
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Mawby, R. L.
Rawlinson, Peter
Temple, John M.


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Redmayne, M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Morrison, John (Sallsbury)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Lt.Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Nairn, D. L. S.
Renton, D. L. M.
Thomton-Kemsley, C. N.


Neave, Airey
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Shepherd, William
Vane, W. M. F.


Oakshott, H. D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wade, D. W.


Page, R. G.
Speir, R. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Spent, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Partridge, E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Storey, S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pitt, Mist E. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Mr. J. H. Harrison and Mr. Bryan.


Pott, H. P.
Studholme, Sir Henry



Powell, J. Enoch
Summers, Sir Spencer

Amendment proposed: In page 4, line 36, at end insert:
 or to any licence issued to a person who proves in such manner as the Postmaster-General may direct that for the week during which the licence is issued he is receiving a retirement pension under the National Insurance Act, 1946, or, if he satisfied the relevant contribution conditions under that Act, would

be receiving such a pension, or is receiving an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936."—[Mrs. White]

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 182.

Division No. 116.]
AYES
[8.7 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hastings, S.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Albu, A. H.
Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Healey, Denis
Oram, A. E.


Balfour, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Owen, W. J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Benson, G.
Hobson, c. R. (Keighley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holmes, Horace
Paton, John


Blyton, W. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Pearson, A.


Boyd, T. C.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pentland, N.


Brockway, A. F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Popplewell, E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, J. T, (Westhoughton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Clunie, J.
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Ross, William


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shlnwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cronin, J. D.
King, Dr. H. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Ledger, R, J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee. Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Fienburgh, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Finch, H. J.
McKay, John (Waltsend)
Swingler, S. T.


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


George, Lady MeganLloyd(Car'then)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Tomney, F.


Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gooch, E. G.
Mason, Roy
Viant, S. P.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Weitzman, D.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Messer, Sir F.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Elrene (E. Flint)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hale, Leslie
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Willey, Frederick


Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Hannan, w.
Mulley, F. W.
Williams. Ronald (Wigan)




Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Winterbottom, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Woof, R. E.
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.


Wilson, Rt. Hon. Haroid (Huyton)
Zilliacus, K.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Neave, Airey


Aitken, W. T.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Alport, C. J. M.
Gurden, Harold
Nugent, C. R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oakshott, H. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)


Ashton, H.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Atkins, H. E.
Hay, John
Orr-Ewing Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Baldwin, A. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Partridge, E.


Barter, John
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hornby, R. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pott, H. P.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Powell, J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Howard, John (Test)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Bishop, F. P.
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Rawlinson, Peter


Black, C. W.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Redmayne, M.


Body, R. F.
Hurd, A. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hutchison Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)
Renton, D. L. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hyde, Montgomery
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Brooman- White, R. C.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shepherd, William


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Jennings, J. c. (Burton)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Keegan, D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Channon, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert C.
Kimball, M.
Speir, R, M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kirk, P, M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lagden, G. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Knox
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Leather, E. H. C.
Storey, S.


Dance, J. C. G.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Maj.Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Temple, John M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Errington, Sir Eric
Luoas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McCallum, Major Sir Duncan
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Fell, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Finlay, Graeme
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turner, H. F. L.


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Freeth, Denzil
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Glover, D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wade, D. W.


Godber, J. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Douglas
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Gough, C. F. H.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Gower, H. R.
Mawby, R. L.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Medlicott, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr.R.(Nantwich)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Green, A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Mr. Bryan.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nairn, D. L. S.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: As I have a pressing engagement with the electors of Hornsey, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if, after opening this debate, I take my leave in order to pursue my political duties elsewhere.
We have made a number of attempts to improve Clause 2. Unfortunately, those attempts have been unsuccessful, and it may be useless at this stage to continue the struggle. Nevertheless, there are certain disadvantages about this proposed television duty which I feel it my duty to bring to the attention of the Committee.


I find this a surprising tax. I say "surprising" because I have no recollection of the Conservative Party at the last General Election pronouncing officially in favour of a tax upon television.
My opponent at the election certainly did not mention in his address that the electors of Rossendale would be compelled to pay an additional £1 on their television licence as a television duty. Indeed, the general impression that right hon. and hon. Members opposite gave at the last Election was that they represented the party which was to cut taxes. Indeed, in order to create that impression, they gave a very dangerous inflationary boost on the very eve of the General Election itself. I have not the slightest doubt that this television duty will be removed on the eve of the next General Election, and that the Conservative Party will seek to claim credit for having removed it.
8.15 p.m.
I hope that the Government have considered all the implications of this present proposal. This is a tax on entertainment, instruction and enlightenment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said earlier, television is now a part of the life of the people. However inadequate and unsatisfactory many of us may find the television programmes from time to time, most of us, I think, would not be ashamed to admit that, whenever opportunity permits, we are keen followers of television.
I confess that I do not go so far as the reader of the Daily Mirror who wrote to say that he or she could not understand people who were annoyed at the noise from neighbours' houses, and went on:
 I welcome the sound of B.B.C. television through one wall and I.T.V. through the other. It really cheers me up.
I have some sympathy with the reader in the Spectator who talked about television having laid
… the medium grey cloak of its medium grey standards over our lives,
but I have even greater sympathy with Mr. Samuel Goldwyn who, in the course of his last visit to Britain, said:
 Why should people go out of their homes to watch bad entertainment when they can see it sitting in their armchairs? 
Whatever we may think, this is a subject upon which all of us must at any rate try to be objective. Whatever our

own views may be, this is really almost the only form of recreation available to many of our constituents. I was interested to discover the other day that in my constituency, the total number of television licences is now 10,303, as against 9,387 radio licences. When the Holme Moss transmitter opened only five-and-a-half years ago, Rossendale had only 92 television licences, so in the course of that time there has been a very striking development in that area.
The effect of this new duty means that my constituents will be mulcted to the tune of £10,000 every year, and be mulcted of that amount in spite of the fact that, from time to time, I have had to complain to the Postmaster-General of very bad reception in parts of my constituency. I think that members of the public who find it difficult to receive one or both of the programmes properly, or who, as is the case in some parts of the country, have only the one television programme, will feel very seriously aggrieved that they are being expected to pay this additional £1 per year.
Although our constituents are all generous people who will no doubt welcome the contribution that this additional money will make towards preserving the living theatre and helping sport, I am quite sure that they would have preferred this money to have been found by less generous treatment of the Surtax payers. After all, we should not overlook the fact that those possessing television sets have already paid a very large amount in Purchase Tax on them. On a set costing £63 6s. 0d., a tax of £20 2s. 8d. has already been paid. One would have thought that the holder of a television licence had already contributed a reasonable amount towards helping the Treasury out of the difficulties into which it has got under the present Administration.
There is another aspect of the problem which I wish to bring to the attention of the Government and of the Committee before this Clause is finally accepted. We have two television systems in this country. Since I, like some hon. Members on both sides of the House, have from time to time done a small amount of work for both, I hope that I can be reasonably impartial in what I say. One system, of course, is that provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the


other is the commercial system. Already, one programme contractor at least describes the programmes which are put out on the commercial system as, "Your free television service", intending, presumably, to give the public the impression that they are contributing to the B.B.C. through the payment of the £3 licence fee, whereas the commercial programme is being provided free.
At the moment, 20,700,000 people can receive television, and 9,455,000 can receive both commercial and B.B.C. programmes. The point I want to make is that the addition of this £1 will be especially unfair to the B.B.C, because people will believe that all that additional money they have to pay is going to the B.B.C. for the financing of its work and programmes.
The truth of the matter is that the British Broadcasting Corporation's finances are gravely stretched already so far as television is concerned. In 1956, the net combined licence income of the B.B.C, that is, for both television and sound, was £9,476,000. Of that amount, £7,033,000 was spent on the television service. Out of the money which the B.B.C. receives from licences, all its development expenses have to be met. The B.B.C. is at this disadvantage compared with the commercial television service in that it, as a public service, is providing a television service, or seeking to provide a television service, for every part of the country, whereas the commercial television companies, it is reasonable to suppose, will attempt to cover only those areas where the density of population is sufficiently great to justify commercial advertising. It may well be that the less densely populated parts of the country will not be covered by the commercial system, but the B.B.C. will continue to have to serve them.
Another difficulty is that, at present, the Postmaster-General—whom we are delighted to see in his place—limits the number of hours during which the television service can be on the air each week. The present figure is fifty hours a week. I understand that every extra hour that B.B.C. television runs every week costs £150,000 a year. If, by any chance, the Postmaster-General decides to increase the number of hours that television is permitted, the B.B.C. will

have to find, for every hour, £150,000 a year out of the finance which we vote it.
The commercial companies, on the other hand, are in a favoured position because they are able to recoup their expenses from the advertising revenue they receive for the extra hours they are working. Associated Rediffusion, for example, charges £475 a minute between 6·55 and 7·25 on Thursday and Friday, and the figure drops to £150 a minute on Monday. Associated Television, on the other hand, charges as much as £1,100 a minute for advertising between 8 and 9 o'clock on a Sunday evening.
It is clear that, if the Postmaster-General should decide to extend the hours from, shall we say, fifty to fifty-five hours a week, that would place a very severe burden upon the British Broadcasting Corporation. I hesitate to say that the Government would not be reluctant to see a strain of that kind imposed.
One should, I think, argue that, if the licence holders can afford to pay this additional sum every year, they are entitled to say that the additional sum should be used exclusively for developing the services which the B.B.C. can provide. It is instructive to see how the licence money is at present used. The figures I propose to give to the Committee are approximate, and taken from the annual report and accounts of the B.B.C. for the year 1955–56. In 1954–55, 6½ per cent. of the money collected in licence fees went to the General Post Office for the expenses of collection.
To the Treasury went 9 per cent., and to the B.B.C, for the development of its. services, went 84½ per cent. In 1955–56, the proportion which went to the General Post Office had risen to 7 per cent. The proportion which went to the Treasury had risen to 10½ per cent., and that which went to the B.B.C. had fallen to 82½ per cent. If we take the proportions for 1955–56, and take into account this additional £1 now to be charged to the holders of combined licences, we find that it would mean that 5 per cent. will go to-the General Post Office for collection, 34 per cent. will go to the Treasury, and only 61 per cent. will go to the B.B.C.
If one expresses that in terms of money instead of percentages, it means that in 1954–55 4s. of the licence money went to-the G.P.O., 5s. 5d. was kept by the


Treasury and £2 10s. 7d. went to the B.B.C. In 1955–56, 4s. 2d. went to the G.P.O., 6s. 5d. was kept by the Treasury and £2 9s. 5d. was received by the B.B.C. It we take into account the £1 which is now to be added to the combined licence in the form of a television duty, it will mean that 4s. 2d. goes to the General Post Office, £1 6s. 5d. is retained by the Treasury and £2 9s. 5d. is received by the B.B.C. That seems to me to be a wholly disproportionate state of affairs.
I know that the Government's argument is that this amount will balance the losses which the Exchequer is sustaining in view of the changes in Entertainments Duty, but I should like to remind the Committee that in the case of television we are not considering something which is merely light entertainment or even drama.
One of the redeeming qualities of Independent Television, for example, has been the high level of feature production, the kind of programmes for which people like Miss Caryl Doncaster have been specially responsible. I hope that Members of the Committee saw the recent programme on "Warhead" on commercial television, which was the kind of production for which a television undertaking ought to be responsible, in the sense that it was intelligent, courageous and sensitive in the very best sense of the word.
I think that hon. Members on both sides would agree that Independent Television News has set, on the whole, a very high standard for the presentation of news to the public. Programmes of that kind, which are not light entertainment, rank with programmes like "The Hurt Mind" by the B.B.C, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was responsible. There are, of course, other outstanding B.B.C. programmes like "Panorama" and the B.B.C. news bulletins which immediately occur to our minds.
8.30 p.m.
It represents the Government in a rather curious light that they should be seeking to tax people for watching serious, instructive and enlightening programmes of that kind. We ought to remember that it is now 102 years since the House of Commons repealed the tax upon newspapers. What the Government are really seeking to do now is to

recreate a tax of that kind by taxing, not merely light entertainment, but also programmes of instruction, education and enlightenment at the same time.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will await with interest to see what reply the Government give to the criticisms of many of us against this proposed television duty. I have already expressed my regret that I shall not be able to hear the whole of the discussion, but I shall hasten back as quickly as I can to hear the Government point of view. At this stage, I content myself with deploring the harsh and unsympathetic response that we have had so far from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the various arguments that we have advanced.

The Chairman: I was asked to give an indication of how far it would be in order to consider local grievances such as that referred to in the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), in page 4, line 35, after "Britain", insert:
 elsewhere than in the counties of Durham and Northumberland or in the county boroughs comprised in those counties".
I think that this is a fair and correct Ruling. It will be permissible to argue that the tax on television is unfair as some parts of the country do not get the full service, but hon. Members cannot go into details of local grievances.

Mrs. Mann: Does that Ruling apply also to my Amendment in page 5, line 4, concerning Scotland?

The Chairman: Yes. It refers to that type of Amendment. It can be argued that some people are not getting the service for which they are paying, but to go into local grievances would be out of order.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would it be in order, Sir Charles, to argue that the proceeds from the new tax should be devoted to improving the services in the local areas? Surely, that is permissible. Perhaps we may be allowed to see how far we can get with it.

The Chairman: I am doubtful whether that is permissible. The thing to do is to try and to see what luck one has when the time comes.

Mr. Grey: I accept your Ruling, Sir Charles, and as my hon. Friend the


Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has suggested, I must wait to see how far I can keep in order. It is a question of interpreting what is a sense of grievance and what is not. The Amendment in page 4, line 35, was put down with the intention of excluding Durham and Northumberland from payment of the duty, but it was not selected. I was rather expecting that when we reached the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we might be able to expound this grievance.
Most of the debate on the Clause has been devoted to trying to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some relief for old-age pensioners and the disabled, and no one could have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) without being moved by the plea which he put forward for the relief of those people. As I listened to him and to other speakers I could not help but feel a certain inferiority complex about my own Amendment as being less important, but after thinking over the past twelve years and of the great injustice meted out to quite a number of people in a certain part of the country I felt more justified in seeking to speak.
It seems to me that the debate on the Finance Bill is our last resort. We have continually questioned the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General and they have remained wooden. We cannot get any hope from them. Even as recently as yesterday I thought that the Postmaster-General had a sense of frustration and that he expressed irritation because he could not give us a satisfactory answer. He is now on the Front Bench, and I am sure that he will advise the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of what has transpired between him and those who are interested in this problem.
What more can we do? My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) tried to put a Question to the Prime Minister, asking for some kind of inquiry, but that was referred again to the Postmaster-General and my hon. Friend obtained not satisfaction. The only thing that we can do is to seek some redress, and we have tried to suggest that people who live in the area where we say there is cause for complaint should not be required to pay the extra £1 on the licence.
I know that it would be completely out of order if I dealt with sound broadcasting, although it must be remembered that many people have sets which combine television and wireless. There are many such people in the North-East, which is a vast area, and indeed the most important part of the United Kingdom. It is not so local as all that, Sir Robert. All those people who have television and wireless sets combined get pleasure out of their sets, provided that they can receive the right programme. Some prefer sound wireless and they receive the Northern Region programme. When they switch on they hear nothing but programmes from Northern Ireland, which might be good for the people of Northern Ireland but is of no use at all to people in the North-East. I have in my hand a copy of a full week's programme of sound broadcasting.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I cannot allow the hon. Member to discuss sound broadcasting on this Motion.

Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order. Although the licence that we are discussing is called a television receiving licence, it is a licence to receive sound broadcasting as well. When a person pays £4 he is to get a licence which may be called a television licence but in fact is a licence to receive both sound and television.

The Temporary Chairman: We are only discussing the extra £1, which is for television.

Mr. Short: The point is that it is an extra £1 on a licence which authorises the holder to receive sound and television broadcasts. The purpose for which the licence is obtained is to receive either. It may be that the £1 is added to the cost, and it is called a television duty, but the licence covers both sound and television.

Mr. Grey: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert, and before you reply, may I say that I am dealing now not with people who have separate television receivers and wireless sets but with persons who have these combined. They cannot say that they will take out a wireless licence and not use the television. They have to pay the full £4. I was also saying that if they want to


hear the Northern Region radio programme they are disappointed if they get Northern Ireland programmes instead. However, I will not pursue that point any further.
I have made my point, that this is a source of grievance which has been felt by the people in the North-East for over twelve years. On top of that grievance I was amazed at the indignation displayed after the Budget. When I went back to the North-East the weekend afterwards, one would have thought that I was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that I was charging the extra £1 for Television Duty.
You know what people are, Sir Robert, when they feel they have been treated shabbily. They complained that it was a double form of injustice. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said earlier that it was the last straw that breaks the camel's back, and I think he was right. Here there has been this one injustice for twelve years and now there is another form of injustice in having to pay the Television Duty without having an alternative programme.
Let me make myself clear. I thought that the Government were wrong in accepting the principle of I.T.V. I spoke about it on platforms. Most churches had the same objection to it as I did. However, there are some people who like it. There are some in' my constituency whom I have not been able to educate and they have said that they want an alternative programme. The B.B.C. has failed to achieve that. I do not know whether it will try to provide one. Perhaps the Postmaster-General will speak in this debate and tell us? At the moment, however, there is no alternative programme, and yet these people are asked to pay an extra £1 for something which other people have got and they have not. That is their main objection.
We have been arguing today that the old-age pensioners, the disabled, the people who have not got big incomes, should not pay the extra £1. Yet they will have to do so, and in the North-East they will do so knowing that they cannot get the same kind of service as is given to the rest of the country. We have a right to explain to the House the sense of injustice and frustration felt by the people

in the North-East. They want to be treated more justly. They are tired of being treated as nitwits. They want to feel that they are an important part of society and that they are equal to anyone else. I am sure that their grievances are just as they realise that they are paying £4 for a television licence and are only getting one service whereas other people are paying £4 and getting two services.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), who has been fighting this crusade on behalf of listeners and televiewers in the North-East for a long time without any apparent success. It seems to me that we in the North-East are the forgotten people of broadcasting and television. So few of us have the opportunity of putting our views on the media that we have to make up in the House for that failure.
I want, first, to deal with a wider aspect. I am totally opposed to the Clause standing part of the Bill, because I consider this tax an unjust burden to place on many people. For instance, if we set it against the background of the Budget we find that certain people have done extremely well in the Budget but that those who get nothing from it, those who are not paying Income Tax and who have no concessions in the Budget, are the people who suffer, for if they have a television set an extra tax of £1 is imposed upon them. The least well-off section of the community has been penalised by the Budget, whereas the more well-to-do have obtained benefits from it.
Why has the Financial Secretary proceeded in this way? Why has he made it a separate tax on television rather than adopt the more straightforward way of increasing the licence fee? If he wanted an extra £1 for the B.B.C. service, a case could be made for it, but I can see no case for increasing the national revenue by £6 million to make up for what has been given away in relief of Entertainments Duty and other reliefs. One does not follow automatically from the other. I should like an explanation why the Government have proceeded by means of a tax and not by means of an increase in the licence fee.
What is to happen to the proceeds of this extra tax? I do not know how many


millions of pounds it will bring in during a year, for no one knows how many television sets there will be in the future. Clearly a considerable sum will accrue to the revenue each year.
That brings me to the problem of the North-East, where we are receiving an unsatisfactory sound broadcasting service. It seems impossible for that to be put right. We have to suffer or enjoy sharing the service with Northern Ireland; it is a marriage of convenience, or perhaps a shotgun wedding, but we should like a divorce from Northern Ireland as quickly as possible. If we cannot put Northern Ireland with Scotland or Wales, or put Scotland with Wales and have our own independent service, and if we are to have this extra burden of Northern Ireland in sound broadcasting, then I think we are entitled to ask for a better television service.
The North-East is one of the areas where it is extremely difficult to get good commercial television reception. Some people may think that there is no harm in that, but if the rest of the country can have a reasonable commercial television service when we have not even an alternative sound programme, we should have some priority in the North-East about the development of commercial television.
I understand that the B.B.C. television programme from Pontop Pike has solved one problem and that V.H.F. has solved the problems of sound broadcasting for those people who have been able to get new V.H.F. sets, but in the North-East there are many thousands of licence holders who do not possess new wireless sets and who have to make do with the old. I argue that we are entitled to demand that the proceeds of this new levy, this new impost, should be used almost entirely for improving the services available to the people in the North-East and for generally improving the broad-casting services throughout the country.
I cannot believe that there is any logic in the argument that in order to relieve the theatre and sport of Entertainments Duty it is necessary to put a tax on the home viewer. One of the main problems in past years has been to keep people at home, and television has been an excellent medium for doing that, provided that it has been used in moderation and with some wisdom. To put a tax on it may

result in driving people to see pictures which they do not really want to see. That seems to be wrong, and I cannot understand why we should penalise the T.V. viewer to benefit Mr. James Arthur Rank and his associates. That is not the right kind of priority.
Is it intended that the tax should become a permanent feature of our fiscal system? It is very easy once a tax is imposed to double it in the following year when more money is wanted, and so it goes on, like Income Tax, temporary in the beginning and then becoming permanent and reaching outrageous proportions. We should like some guarantee from the Treasury that it does not look on this as a kind of perpetual tax to soak the television viewer year by year.
What form will the new licence forms take? Will they be issued in two parts, licence and duty, separated by a perforated edge, or will the two be on one document? For administration it is obviously much better to have the two on one piece, but that raises certain problems about the mechanics of the way this is to be done, about which we should be told more.
Finally, I want to stress that the Clause is bad. It is unnecessary, but if we must have it, I stake a claim with my colleagues from the North-East that the major part of the proceeds from the new duty should be used for the benefit of the people of the North-East to give them a much better service than they are now having.

Mr. Popplewell: I oppose the Motion, because the Clause is an additional imposition which is obviously purely for revenue purposes. It has nothing to do with television or sound broadcasting, but is an attempt by the Government to bolster their finances because they have removed entertainments tax from sport and other forms of entertainment and want compensation for the loss of revenue.
This is a very great injustice, because television is not just entertainment in the way that the other forms of entertainment which were taxed were. Television and sound broadcasting have a dual role, entertainment and education. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred to the tax which 102 years ago was removed from


newspapers because in those days newspapers were educational—although today they may be classed as entertainment or sensationalism. That is a very fair comparison with the television duty, because whether we like it or not television is playing and will continue to play a very great part in educating the people.
We have recently seen a number of national and other newspapers going out of circulation for a variety of reasons. One of the most important has been the increase in newsprint costs and so forth, but another is that television has taken advertising revenue from the newspapers and, as such, is a form not of entertainment but of education, in that through I.T.V. advertisements are trying to educate the people to buying a particular brand of goods. From that point of view alone it is very wrong to approve the Clause. As was said by my hon. Friends, once this additional payment of duty—termed a "duty" in the Bill, but we all know that it is another word for additional licence—is made, there is very little likelihood of it being taken off.

Mr. Ellis Smith: So we should divide against the Clause.

Mr. Popplewell: The old-age pensioners, the sick and the blind, have this additional imposition put upon them, while at the other end the Chancellor very freely and gladly grants easement to the Surtax payer of £12 a week and over. But these poor, sick souls will have to pay an extra £1 per year television duty in order to assist the Chancellor to recoup the losses he has made by the entertainments tax concessions. From that point of view this is a very unjust Clause indeed, and I sincerely hope that further thought will be given to it with a view to taking it out of the Bill altogether.
I have also a particular constituency and local interest in this matter. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and other hon. Members representing the North-East Coast, I feel that the people in the North-East have a further grievance because, if they are being asked to pay £4 for a licence for television and sound radio, they are surely entitled to equal treatment with the rest of the country.
For twelve years people in that area have been suffering an injustice. Possibly it is inevitable, with the difficulty of wavelengths agreed internationally, that we cannot have all the wavelengths we desire and that someone has to suffer an injustice from time to time. The teeming millions in the North-East, which is providing coal, steel and engineering products so vital to the economy of this country, while they do not desire any preferential treatment in any way, feel that after a period of twelve years, if easement cannot be given to them, they should not be asked to bear this additional burden. They feel that like other parts of the country they should have a wavelength which will entirely cover their local point of view.
We all know that this has been pressed for by North-East Members of Parliament for a considerable time. I think that the Postmaster-General, who is present, feels that we have a case because of his observations earlier this week, when he said that he had at least two interviews with the Director General, or at any rate with the B.B.C. personnel, in connection with this matter. Having gone into this twice so recently, he will probably feel that there is an injustice attaching to our particular area of the country. Therefore, if nothing can be done immediately, the Chancellor ought to come to the aid of the Postmaster-General and also the people of the North-East. If an additional wavelength cannot be allocated he ought not to ask these people to pay the increased television duty. They should receive equity of treatment with people in the rest of the country.
On the ground, first, of the general injustice to the least fortunate sections of the community—the sick, the blind the old-age pensioners and those people who look to television for some little comfort because they cannot get other entertainment—and, secondly, of the particular injustice to those people of the North-East who are constantly having to pay their full dues but are still refused the benefits enjoyed by the rest of the country, the Chancellor should accept the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when he announced this tax to the House. He said:
 On the other hand, there have been many changes since the duty was introduced in 1916


and, indeed, since it was last revised in 1954. Some forms of entertainment are expanding. As they expand they affect the profit of the other types. In particular, television has, in recent years, grown to be a powerful competitor with other entertainments and I have had to consider whether it is bearing a share of taxation comparable with its rivals. I have not overlooked the fact that anyone who buys a television set pays a substantial amount of Purchase Tax upon it. But there is no tax on its use comparable with the tax on the admission price to a cinema. I am satisfied that a fairer balance in the taxation of these competitive entertainments is desirable.
I accordingly propose that an Excise duty of £1 should be levied on each combined television and radio licence which at present costs £3.
I want you to notice those words, Sir Robert. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that this was a levy on each combined television and radio licence. In spite of the rubric to the Clause being confined to television, that was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman described the provision, until the draftsman got hold of these words, and, as usual, had to put in something which the Minister did not have in mind. The Minister went on:
There will, of course, be appropriate rates for the comparatively few cases where television licences are issued at something different from the standard charge. This new duty will not, of course, apply to licences for sound reception only. The new duty will operate from 1st August and I estimate that it will yield £6¼ million in this financial year and £8 million in a full year."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 9th April. 1957; Vol. 568, c. 989.]
It seems to me that the whole excuse for this tax—the right hon. Gentleman cannot say there was any reason for it— is based upon a fallacy. No one will go to the cinema rather than pay this extra tax, and the cinema people will not get anything out of it, although the Chancellor will get £8 million a year. To argue that these two forms of entertainment are competitive and that because he is getting something out of the cinemas he must therefore get a little more from television viewers, seems to me to be a complete fallacy. This is not robbing Peter to pay Paul; this is robbing Peter to have an excuse to rob Paul as well. It seems to me that this is hardly a policy which can be justified even by a Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I represent one of the county boroughs on the North-East Coast. I do not know

why the people who drafted the Amendment should talk about
 county boroughs comprised in those counties.
The one thing about a county borough is that it is not in the county.

Mr. Chetwynd: My right hon. Friend will recognise that he was instrumental in stopping a non-county borough becoming a county borough.

Mr. Ede: Because I thought it appropriate for it to be in the county. The "big boys" do not want a lot of "small boys" cluttering up their playground. My hon. Friend should know that from his experience as a schoolmaster.

Mr. Chetwynd: We have boys and girls.

Mr. Ede: We do not want "small girls" in the playground of the "big boys." The hon. Gentleman must think of a better excuse.
I have no objection to Independent Television. The only thing the B.B.C. asks me to do is to deliver obituary notices, for which it pays nothing in spite of the strain on one's conscience when one is preparing them. I had a nice set prepared for all the Members of the present Government. But when I read them over to my sister, she said, "You really cannot give any of these because the motto regarding obituary notices is de mortuis nil nisi bonum and therefore the only thing to do about obituary notices for Members of the present Government is to remain completely silent." But that would not satisfy the B.B.C. Independent Television does on occasions pay me a reasonable fee and therefore I have no objection to it.
It is not fair on my constituents that they should not have the same service as other people who are mulcted by this tax. They grumbled enough about the sound broadcasts, because if there is one place which is not like Northern Ireland it is the North-East Coast of England. There are other places which are like Northern Ireland, but certainly those two places are completely distinct, and it is a genuine grievance that they are supposed to have a common television service.
People on the North-East Coast quite rightly feel that until they get the same service which is available to other parts


of the country, there should be a differential in the tax which is levied. The excuse of the Chancellor is that, because it is an entertainment, everybody should pay the same. After all, a person who goes to the cinema pays tax in proportion to the seat he gets and the comfort he enjoys at the cinema. Surely, therefore, the tax on television should have some relationship to the actual service provided. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the justice of this and that, if he cannot do anything at this stage, he will on Report attempt to put right this grievance.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the feeling about the matter on the North-East Coast is very strong. The people there do not mind paying on the basis of fair shares, if they are getting an equal return for their money. But they have every right to protest against being asked to pay the same amount as people who are getting the full service when they get only half of it. Are the cinema tax and the television duty linked in his mind now in the way they were on the day he introduced his Budget?
It is quite clear that taxes on entertainments generally are on the way out. The only reason for not abolishing the whole of the cinema tax was, I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in the week, that he could not afford to give up the whole amount, at any rate this year. Let us assume that next year he finds it possible to reduce or abolish the cinema duty, will there be corresponding reduction or abolition of this extra £1?

Mr. Cherwynd: He will increase it.

Mr. Ede: I would ask my hon. Friend not to think that he can get into the mind of a Chancellor of the Exchequer a year ahead. After all, last year it was not the right hon. Gentleman opposite who promised us that all the taxes on entertainment would come under review. With the rapid changes which take place in this Government, goodness only knows what the right hon. Gentleman may be by this time next year. His conscience might take him right outside the Government altogether.

Mr. Collins: His conscience might bring him over to this side of the Committee.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend must not get too optimistic.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman quite seriously, are these two things now linked in his mind and in the mind of the Treasury? This tax is put on because there is a tax on going to the cinema. That was the only reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave for putting it on. I believe that it was only an excuse, but he put it forward as a reason. As the cinema duty declines—I do not think anyone imagines that it is going to increase in future—or is abolished, will this extra £1 disappear?
I wish to ask a question about subsection (4) of this Clause. The Financial Secretary made two efforts at explaining it to the Committee. I should like to know exactly how it works. I pay my duty in this matter on or about 1st May. Therefore, at present I have a licence which will expire on 30th April, 1958. If I am away from home and the place is closed down for three or four months during the present year, can I give notice to the Postmaster-General that I shall not be using my apparatus, and, if necessary, will give him a certificate that it has been properly dismantled? That could be done by a great nephew of mine who would take great delight in doing it, and when I came back he would take equal delight in putting it together again. On the assumption that it would then work— a pretty rash assumption—would the period begin to run again then?
I gather that subsection (4) was designed to enable tax to be made proportionate to the use made of the apparatus. I want the right hon. Gentleman to understand that the break in the use is to be in such a form, that the Postmaster-General can have a guarantee, in whatever form he likes, that the apparatus will not be used during that period.
What happens when my licence becomes due on 1st May, 1958? Do I have to pay for only eight months in 1958–59, or can I have the fee for the four months during which I have not used the apparatus reimbursed to me at the end of the current year? I assure the hon. Gentleman that the kind of explanation that he gave merely drives one into abstruse mathematical calculations as to the way in which the matter would be adjusted.
I hope my hon. Friends will go into the Lobby against the Clause. I do not believe that there was any ground for the excuse put forward by the right hon. Gentleman linking this up, in the astounding way he did, with the retention of a tax on the cinema. I can only hope that this tax will be short lived. In fact, if it is stillborn, so much the better.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Short: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Popplewell) in opposing this vicious imposition. It is an imposition, because television benefits most the sick, lonely and aged; in other words, the people least able to afford the additional charge.
The additional £1 is imposed on everyone, and our Amendments to provide relief have been resisted by the Chancellor. When the Government removed subsidies, they did so because they said it was unfair to pay subsidies to the rich as well as the poor. In the case of an imposition like this, it is apparently fair to apply it to the poor as well as to the rich, and so the earlier argument does not apply the other way round.
I should have hoped that there would be a little more extensive opposition to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals from my hon. Friends. I am glad that there has been some very weighty opposition to them in the last few minutes. I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, and I hope that my hon. Friends will not allow the imposition to go through on the nod.
As the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, it is an extra £1 on the receiving licence—a licence for receiving both sound and television. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, I represent a constituency in the North-East. I represent 55,000 people in Newcastle, the great metropolis of the North-East, the greatest county borough in the North-East. [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend wish to interrupt me?

Mr. Ede: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was attempting to put my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) in his place.

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend will probably do that later. The people whom I represent are hard-working people. They build great ships, tractors and tanks, and they hew coal. Incidentally, they send many Labour M.P.s to the House of Commons, and that may be the reason why they get no satisfaction of their grievance. They are 55,000 of the most hard-working people in the British Isles, and I should have thought that a Government Department and a public corporation like the B.B.C. would have tried to serve them well, for of all the people in the British Isles they ought to be given a good service and value for their money.
What shall we get for the £4 for a receiving licence? I have already pointed out that it is a licence for receiving sound and television. First, we shall get the worst sound broadcasting service in the British Isles. I see the Assistant Post master-General shaking his head, but we shall be the only people in Great Britain who do not have a full regional service.I think that that is unjust. We are the only people in Great Britain—

Mrs. Mann: Apart from Scotland.

Mr. Short: Scotland has a whole regional service. We have only part of a regional service. We share it with Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has said, we share with a region that is hundreds of miles away from us with which we have no community of interest. Very often we do not know what they are talking about. Their dialect, idiom, folk songs, mean nothing to us, and some of their programmes are quite unintelligible to us.
For years we have pressed the Postmaster-General to rectify this situation. What does he do? What did he do at Question Time this week? To say the very least, he treated the complaints of hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent, I should think, almost a million people, with disdain—almost with contempt. At least four solutions are possible and the Postmaster-General has refused seriously to consider any one of them. All he does week after week is to repeat from the Dispatch Box the silly excuses of the B.B.C, which will not do anything. It is not that it cannot do anything—as I say, there are solutions—


but it will not do anything at all. That is the picture of sound broadcasting in the North-East.
What do we get for the rest of our money? Television. Nine people out of ten who have licences for television have two programmes. We in the North-East have one. Both for sound broadcasting and for television we are part of the B.B.C.'s submerged tenth. On this side of the House, we did not want I.T.V. We opposed it as hard as we could, both here and in the country. I think that I.T.V. was wrong, but it was the only way in which the Conservative Government were prepared to provide an alternative programme, and whether we like it or not it is here as that alternative, and as it is here, and as it is the best that the Government provide, I think that the people in the North-East should have it, just as have the other nine-tenths.
I do not want to take up any more time, but we who represent constituents in the North-East would not deserve their confidence if we did not protest very strongly against this raw deal. We do protest against it, we shall keep on protesting against it, and we shall keep on protesting against it whenever the rules of order of this House allow us to do so. The Assistant Postmaster-General can tell his right hon. Friend that our protest will go on rising to a crescendo which will, if he does not do something, remove him from office.

Mr. Willey: With everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) has said, except with reference to Newcastle, I agree, but in view of his very justifiable strictures upon the Postmaster-General I think that I should say a word in the right hon. Gentleman's support. I think that he has been disgracefully treated today. He has been on the Front Bench, gagged. I make no protest at all about his not being in the Chamber now. I think that he has done the only thing that a Minister could honourably do when treated in this way by the mandarins of the Treasury. But at an early stage he could have helped us considerably.
I think that this is a bad Clause, first, because parts of it are incomprehensible to me, and probably to others. I heard the Financial Secretary's explanation, but the Postmaster-General, who

can usually express himself with sufficient lucidity to expose the faults of his argument, was not allowed to speak. That is a pity. I hope that the Government will pay attention to what has been said earlier, and that we shall have an opportunity to study the contribution of the Financial Secretary, and that the Chancellor will indicate that we are not to complete our consideration of this Clause tonight.
That is my first reason. I do not think that we should accept this Clause when we do not really understand what parts of it do. I think that we should be open to criticism as legislators if we legislated on something which many of us cannot understand.
Secondly, the Clause is bad because it imposes avoidable hardship upon handicapped persons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I regret to say, disgraced himself by the flippant way in which he replied to a very good debate. He showed a complete lack of sympathy for unfortunate handicapped persons, and all he could do as regards old-age pensioners was to hold up the spectre of our grandmothers. What was particularly disgraceful was his suggestion that we are a nation of "fiddlers". That is what he was saying, and I think that he is the last person in the world who should say that.
The reputation of the British people stands high; there is not, I believe, any other people in the world which conducts its tax affairs with such integrity as we do. Yet the only answer the Chancellor could give to a well-informed, serious debate—unsupported from the Government Benches, but let that pass—was to say that advantage will be taken of our proposal by dishonest people. With a smirk and a sneer, he castigated us as dishonest. He did not answer the challenge that I put, that our proposal was not difficult to administer. He conceded that, as far as administration went, it was quite practicable. But he said, of course, that if he were to allow this concession to handicapped people or old-age pensioners, advantage would be taken of it on a wide scale, and for that reason he did not want to do it.
That answer will not do, and I hope that between now and the Report stage the Chancellor will read what he said, realise the unfortunate impression that he


created upon the Committee, and think again about it. I express disappointment about it because it unfairly reflected upon the Chancellor himself. I do not think that he is nearly so bad as the impression which his contribution to our discussions would lead us to believe. I hope that, in order to save his own good name, he will see to it that before the Report stage he removes the unfortunate impression created by that contribution of his, look at the matter again very seriously, and consider whether he could not make a charitable and human concession to handicapped people, many of whom are in particular need at the present time.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend has made his point with so much lucidity and force that I venture to hope that, if he will move to report Progress, that being the normal method of preventing us from coming to a conclusion tonight on this Clause, it will give us all an opportunity of considering the implications of the events which have taken place today.

Mr. Willey: If you feel that that would be the proper step for me to take, Sir Robert, I will, of course, accept my hon. Friend's invitation and forthwith move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Temporary Chairman: I could not accept that Motion at the moment.

Mr. Willey: I rather anticipated that answer, Sir Robert, and I thought that I might not have quite the success which my hon. Friend seemed to expect. I rather feel that I have let him down.

Mr. Hale: No; my hon. Friend certainly impressed me.

Mr. Willey: At all events, it is a matter to which we can return. We have made out a case for consideration, and the Government have not given any indication yet of their intentions. I am optimistic enough to believe that they have no intention of obtaining this Clause tonight.
I now wish to add my support to my hon. Friends from the North-East in protesting at this unfair imposition upon the people who live in the Counties of Durham and Northumberland, including the county boroughs. I will give an illustration to show how unfair it is. When the representatives of the cinemas

approached us with regard to Entertainments Duty, one of the points that they made with regard to the North-east was that they were not—and they produced facts and figures to prove it—as badly affected at the present moment as cinemas in other parts of Britain. The reason is that television viewers do not have the choice of an alternative programme. It is anticipated that if such a choice were given, there would be a falling away in cinema attendances. That, surely, demonstrates that the attractiveness of television is less in the North-East than in other parts of the country.
9.30 p.m.
I do not see why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with the ingenuity that he showed on Clauses 3 and 4, which, I understood, had something to do with proportions, should not have worked out a formula to determine the proportion to be paid by the North-East. He must concede that we should not pay it in full. In other parts of the country, when the B.B.C. is showing something that they do not like, people can turn to commercial television, and when they find that that is equally objectionable, they can turn it off. That is obviously an advantage over people in the North-East, who can only turn their sets off. They have no alternative programme. The Financial Secretary is good at working out things of this sort. He could easily work out a formula, explain it incomprehensibly and leave it at that. Had he done that, we would have felt that our position was appreciated by the Government.
The other point is that we cannot divorce viewing from listening. I do not want to repeat the arguments and further embarrass the Assistant Postmaster-General, but he knows that the whole of the North-East Coast is seething with discontent about this. We have put up with this situation for far too long and we ought to receive at least some monetary compensation. Instead, we get the kind of reply which does the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) no good at all. This has become a political issue in the North-East. We are being discriminated against in every matter which arises. We have had all the trouble about the Tyne tunnel and only years of protestations have got it restored.
We cannot go on being treated like this in the North-East. I should have thought that the independent Member for Sunderland, South would have been here to support me tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I hope that there is still time for him to come and support me. This is the sort of issue which might help him. In politics, he seems to have put himself at some disadvantage, and it is on matters such as this that he could show that he has the interest of the North-East Coast at heart. He could take advantage of his independent position to come and speak for us on the North-East Coast who are suffering in this way.
The Chancellor has the opportunity to do something. I hope that before we complete our consideration of the Clause, he will say that he has given careful consideration to the pleas that have been made on behalf of the North-East Coast, that he appreciates the reason why the Postmaster-General has felt obliged to leave us, and that he will make easier the position of the Postmaster-General by announcing that before the Report stage he will work out a formula whereby we in the North-East will feel that we are receiving monetary compensation for the disadvantages that we are at present suffering.

Mrs. Mann: I want to protest at the outset at the imposition of the extra £1. I spoke on this matter on Second Reading and I do not want to go over the same argument again, but I have the evergrowing fear that television and broadcasting in general are the milch cow for the Government—whichever party it may be—to help to pay for the welfare services. I say "whichever Government" because I was disappointed beyond measure at hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about two weeks ago, announce that he knew that the £1 would not be opposed by Opposition Members. That was something I did not know.
We are supported in this view. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has shown how in his constituency the number of television sets rose from 92 to 10,000. On every one of those the Government of the day received £20 in Purchase Tax. One would have thought that as television sets multiplied and production was

speeded up, the article would become cheaper, but it is not so. Television sets are dearer than when production started. The great multiple production of sets in their thousands fails to contribute towards reducing costs, and the Government have a hand in the till all the time.
It comes as a shock, in particular to working-class people who, in the main, are owners of television sets, that when a set breaks down it is just another excuse for the Chancellor to get his greedy hand into the till. He receives anything from £5 to £9 in Purchase Tax whenever a tube is replaced according to the size of the screen. It is bad enough to be in the hands of a monopoly, about which the Chancellor has done nothing at all.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I would ask the hon. Lady to address herself to the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mrs. Mann: The Government already receive all this money on repairs and replacements.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that that does not arise on this Motion.

Mrs. Mann: This is one reason why the Government should be content with the present £3 for the licence and should not impose an extra burden. The more sets the more Purchase Tax, and the more sets the more breakdowns of tubes.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Surely my hon. Friend must appreciate that if the Chancellor is to give the poor £10,000-a-year man a rebate of £12 to £14 a week on Surtax, he must get the money somewhere. This is one means of getting it—by charging the old-age pensioners an extra £1 for the licence.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting very far away from the Motion.

Mrs. Mann: I understand my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) to say that the Chancellor must get the money somewhere. I object to the right hon. Gentleman taking it from Scotland. That is why I have an Amendment on the Order Paper to provide that the extra charge of £1 shall not apply to areas not yet covered by commercial television. I object to his taking it from Scotland because Scotland is not receiving


the full service that most of England receives. We have no alternative viewing programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lucky."] We are promised—some people would say threatened—with commercial television at the end of August, but we find that half the population of Scotland and two-thirds of the area of Scotland will be excluded from commercial television.

Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that she is really fortunate, because on a Sunday she will not have to suffer viewing the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby). Think what she would have to suffer if she had to watch that programme.

Mrs. Mann: May I point out to my hon. Friend that it would not cause me suffering to see the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire or any others who take part in the programme "In the News ".

Mrs. Slater: "Free Speech."

Mrs. Mann: I hear something about "Free Speech." I have not the opportunity of looking in and do not know all these programmes. I know, however, that when it comes to a matter of free speech—I hope I may have the attention of my own Front Bench—the parties in this House have done their best to stop it on the B.B.C. We know that the spokesmen on either Front Bench intervene time and again if they think a person is too popular with the rest of the country—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Lady is getting very far away from the Clause.

Mr. Lewis: It is very interesting.

An Hon. Member: But quite untrue.

Mrs. Mann: I have tried to explain why I do not think there is much to choose between one and the other. After all, for this extra £1 we want selective viewing, and we cannot always have it, particularly when it is laid down that the only M.P.s we shall hear are those selected for the dullest of all programmes, party political broadcasts. We want to be able to turn them off and have another programme, because some of the commercial programmes are very good, just as some of the B.B.C. television programmes are very good. Then we would

be getting the best value for our money. But until we in Scotland can get that free choice, I do not think the Chancellor has any right to ask us to pay an extra £1. I hope, therefore, that he will have second thoughts and exclude Scotland from this imposition.

Mr. William Ainsley: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising my voice in protest on behalf of my constituents against this tax. Mention has been made of the North-East area and its genuine grievance. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, this tax is for television and sound broadcasts, and therefore in my constituency there is a genuine double grievance. As regards sound broadcasting, we are receiving in the North-East half of the wavelength. As regards television, we receive only the B.B.C. programme in the main part of my constituency, although it is true that we are on the fringe of I.T.V.
I want to give you, Sir Gordon, an idea of my constituency. It is composed of two large rural areas on the undulating ground of the hills of Weardale. On the calm side of Pontop Pike, there is a booster station. On television receivers I have seen the B.B.C. programme fading away. These people have no hope of getting I.T.V. In the greater part of my constituency we are left with only half of the sound programme and we are able to get only one of the television programmes—and at times the reception of that programme is poor.
9.45 p.m.
I want to look at the problem from a larger point of view. I regard this tax as an attack upon the social services, because television and broadcasting have become an integral part of our life today. Just as we progressed from the use of the stage coach in carrying messages to the reading of the daily newspaper, so we have progressed from the daily newspaper to the B.B.C. news, which comes to us from all parts of the world. When we think of how the world has contracted and how the problems which at one time were so far away are now very close at hand, we realise how essential it is that we in our homes should be conversant with the news which reaches us from day to day by wireless and television.
In the County of Durham we used to house our old people in large buildings. They were a legacy which we had from the old Poor Law days. We have, however, evolved a scheme by which in the new housing estates we built homes and hostels for aged people. We took them there in small groups. Through the generous organisations which we have in the North-East, television sets have been given to these homes.
This comment also applies to children. We had 250 children in the Mensley Cottage Homes, but in the county we have developed arrangements whereby we take them to homes in new housing estates and, to give these children some semblance of home life, we put eight, nine or ten children with foster parents. Again, these organisations have given television sets to the foster parents in these homes.
The local authority will now be saddled with the responsibility of carrying this burden, or it may fall on the foster parents or the matrons and masters of these homes scattered throughout the County of Durham. They are to be penalised. In my opinion, therefore, this tax is an attack upon the Welfare State and the standard of living of the working class in the county. This is particularly the case when we make comparisons with the concessions given by the Chancellor in the Budget to people earning over £2,500 a year. I must therefore protest against the injustice against the workers and their standard of life which is caused by the acceptance of this Clause as part of the Bill.

Mr. Wedgwood Bean: I feel sure that the Committee will not believe the first thing that I say, which is that this is the first time I have ever spoken on a Finance Bill. I had a letter this morning beginning,
Dear Mr. Benn.
This is the first time I have written to a Member of Parliament…
and I did not believe him either. It is true that I have never spoken before on a Finance Bill, and I must therefore ask the indulgence of the Committee.
My first reaction on looking at the Clause was to notice a gleam in the eyes of both the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). Both had that rather special

gleam which a man responsible, or in our case hoping to be responsible, for the country's finances has when he spots a new tax. I think that before the Committee agrees to this new tax, or even reaches the point where it has to decide on it, it should think very carefully about it.
Like most hon. Members, I must declare an interest in that I have and greatly enjoy my television set, and I am one of those who believes that television is a very important force in the community. We are, of course, tonight dealing with a very large section of the public. The figures available show that about 11 per cent. of the total population are listening to radio at any one time every evening and 15 per cent. of the population are watching television at any one time.
Although I know that that shocks some people, because they think that television is undesirable, there is little doubt that this tax is not designed as a deterrent. Some taxes are intended to reduce expenditure—the taxes on alcohol and so on. This is not to reduce expenditure, and I think that we may say that what we are discussing is not a deterrent tax. My grandfather was brought up in a very strict Calvinist home on the West Coast of Scotland, and at the end of the day he would be ushered to bed with the words, "Come along, Daniel, you have had enough pleasure for one day". That was the general view, that if one had too much fun, life had gone wrong. This tax is not a punishment for fun, but undoubtedly an attempt to cash in on an expanding industry.
I am one of those who believe that the growth of television, far more than the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has produced the general changes in our entertainment pattern. Greyhound racing, although I have representations from my constituency every year, has not been as greatly affected by the tax upon it as by the growth of television. Similarly, I think that the cinema has been more badly hit by television than by Entertainments Duty. We must accept these changes, as it is undoubtedly true that television will continue to grow.
This new tax will therefore become a permanent feature. Indeed, if the tax had been described as a temporary tax, I should have been certain that it was


permanent, but as it is described as a permanent tax, I must have some doubts about how long it will last. I want to talk about the financial structure on which the new Television Duty is to be imposed. If we are looking at this matter in a long-term sense, as we must, it is very important that we should examine the existing structure of the finances and see exactly how the new tax fits it. There are three elements in the television industry. There is the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., which are the two output elements, and there is the viewer himself. I want briefly to direct the attention of the Committee to each of those three elements in turn.
First, the B.B.C.; supposedly the licence revenue, which an ordinary person pays when he buys a television or radio set, is to finance the B.B.C. programmes, but a moment's examination will show, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) said, that it is not true that that money or even the majority of it, is used for that purpose. The Post Office takes £2 million a year in return for services rendered.
I have always been extremely doubtful about the basis on which those figures were assessed. The Post Office takes£2 million which it says is justified by the collection of the duty. Of course, the Post Office does not collect it. We go to post offices and buy the licences. The Post Office is not a pedlar going around collecting the duty from us. The other reasons are that the Post Office checks interference and, presumably, finances those little vans which go round deciding whether the people in this or that house have a television licence. This anti-pirate business is an important element of the functions of the Post Office.
At all events, whether this£2 million is a fair or unfair assessment, it is taken from the licence revenue and it is, of course, just as much a benefit for the I.T.A. as for the B.B.C. Anyone who has a television set on which he can receive both programmes but who watches only I.T.A.—it is conceivable—still benefits from the service of the Post Office, and therefore it is a mistake to think that the B.B.C. gets the full benefit from that.
The second element in licence revenue is the £2¾ million which the Treasury gets

for no very good reason other than the fact that it thinks that there should be some yield from the licence revenue, and that is in effect the existing television duty which ran to £2¾ million, last year. That, of course, is a very high proportion, about 20 per cent, or a little under, of the total licence revenue.
Thirdly there is the Income Tax which the B.B.C. has to pay. This has always been a highly controversial point The B.B.C. has always argued that if one is in receipt of public money for public purposes and there is already a tax taken on that by the Treasury it is quite wrong to be charged Income Tax on supposed profits which are not distributed.

Sir Ian Fraser: The B.B.C. pays tax only on its earnings and not on the general licence duty, for instance, on what it receives from sales of the Radio Times.

Mr. Benn: At the same time, a fairly large amount of money is paid by the B.B.C. in Income Tax and, as it says, profit is scarcely the word to use when it is not distributed in the ordinary commercial sense I think that the B.B.C. has a case. It is a point which, as nobody knows better than the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who has had long and distinguished connection with the B.B.C., the B.B.C. has taken up constantly with the Lord Commissioners of the Treasury without success.
I am now trying to estimate the balance of the finances of this industry. One can see that out of the money which is raised from the television licenses £2 million goes to the Post Office which is really in part a subsidy for I.T.A. as well. The Treasury gets £2¾ million and there is also the Income Tax to pay.

Mr. Collins: I think that the position is even more serious than suggested The B.B.C. in fact also pays Income Tax on what it sets aside as capital. If it spent all its revenue it would pay no Income Tax.

Mr. Benn: That is perfectly correct. The difficulty is that if none of the profits can be put aside on capital account one is bound to have to pay Profits Tax on it.
At any rate I hope that the Committee will not take this matter too far because I am trying essentially to draw a comparison between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and to show exactly what is the position. When we look at the B.B.C. position we see that it makes not only a very considerable contribution to the Treasury and the Post Office but, in regard to the Post Office, is actually financing from B.B.C. licence revenue part of the work of I.T.A.
Now let us look at the second output unit, which is the I.T.A. itself. It falls into two groups. First, there is the Authority, which is in receipt of a £2 million loan—at any rate that was given under the initial legislation—to enable it to provide the capital equipment necessary to run the alternative station. That money was provided by the Treasury, as is the £100,000 a year now made available under the provision of the Television Act itself. So we find that I.T.A. is a net gainer from the Treasury whereas the B.B.C. is a net loser.
Finally, I turn to the companies themselves, and here is the origin of all the money available for commercial television. It is money made available by those companies that show the advertisements. All the companies that show advertisements are allowed to charge their advertisements against their expenditure and, therefore, get an annual tax remission from the Treasury for every £1 they spend on advertising.
10.0 p.m.
We find that, in contrast to the B.B.C. —in respect of which a constant stream of money goes to the Treasury —the I.T.A. receives money coming from the Treasury. I do not want to go into the question of who really pays for advertising because I know that there is a glorious myth, shared by hon. Members opposite, that advertising money creates itself. They are always saying, in relation to our Welfare State, that we get something for nothing, and in the case of commercial television they tell us that it is a free television service, which seems to imply that the public are getting something for nothing.
This is largely an illusion, although advertisers are getting something for their money, because they get a tax remission in respect of the expenditure of

every £1 of their business income. An example was the renewed activities of the petrol advertisers when rationing ended.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member is getting away from the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Benn: I am sorry, Sir Gordon. Nothing could be further from my mind. I am now considering that part of the television industry which actually receives money from the Treasury. I was arguing that the I.T.A. was in that position.

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not come within the terms of the Clause.

Mr. Benn: I have in fact passed from that point now, and I shall not return to it. What I was trying to say was that we should very seriously consider the justice of asking the viewer to pay more when other sections concerned with television are getting something for nothing.
I turn now to the position of the viewer. Let us assume that he pays £60 for his television set, which is the price of a rather smaller set than would now be average. Of that sum about £20 goes in Purchase Tax. I understand that the average length of life of a set is only six years. Many cathode-ray tubes fail in a much shorter period, but six years can be taken as a fair average for the life of a television set. That means that the depreciation is about £10 a year. With the present rate of Purchase Tax on a television set this means that the person with a £60 set is already paying £3 a year in tax to the Treasury for the pleasure of watching television programmes.
Although I am not a mathematician, I want to try to break down the average cost per day to the average viewer in respect of his television set. I calculate that with the cost of the television set broken down as between purchase price and Purchase Tax, as I have indicated, a £60 set means a cost of about £7 a year—which is very roughly 4d. a day—and £5 in tax, made up of £3 in Purchase Tax, £1 paid out on behalf of the B.B.C. to the Treasury and the Post Office and the new imposition of another £1 a year.
In fact the viewer is paying £5 a year in one form or another to the Treasury


as a result of the new provision. Up to now he has been paying £4 a year, and now he has to pay an extra£1. That works out at about 3d. a day, which is a very heavy tax to levy upon the ordinary television viewer. I am not saying that for the value of the programmes available that price is too high. I think that at 7d. a day the average viewer is not getting at all bad value for his money, when we consider that a television programme costs about £2,700 an hour to put on.
I would not rule out the possibility of an entertainments tax on television. What I am saying is, however, that I hope the Committee will not pass the Clause because to impose this tax, operating as it does upon this industry, financed as it is, is an absolutely lunatic thing to do, because it will be a permament tax. No doubt when I am an old man people will say of me, "He remembered a time before the television tax came into operation," just like those old people who boast that they knew the days when there was no Income Tax [Laughter.] Am I wrong about that?

Mr. H. Wilson: Income Tax was first introduced in 1799. It was suspended in 1815; revived by Sir Robert Peel in 1841 on a temporary basis, for a period of four or five years; Gladstone announced in 1853 that it would go in 1860; he fought the Election of 1874 on that issue, and was defeated. That is the history of the matter.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is very interesting but far from the subject matter of the Clause.

Mr. Benn: I am sorry, Sir Gordon, that you have ruled my right hon. Friend out of order because he transgressed only to keep me in order.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My right hon. Friend might have said that the Liberals voted against it.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is tempting me still further. I merely say, as a relatively young Member with a great respect for the older Members, that some of them actually look as though they do remember.
The point that this Committee has to consider, the sole point that we have to consider, is whether in the present

circumstances we should impose this tax, and there are many reasons why we should not do so. Before there is further revenue from television, there must be an improvement in the services in those areas of the country where the service is bad. My right hon. and hon. Friends have referred to the North-East Coast and elsewhere and, there is a strong rumour that in another place those noble Lords who listen with earphones are really listening to Radio Luxembourg. The idea of an alternative service through the loudspeakers is one which might be considered as a way to get a better attendance. I believe that hon. Members representing constituencies where there is not good reception have a real claim for consideration.
The second thing I wish to urge is that there should be a re-examination of the financial structure of television generally. I is monstrously unfair that the B.B.C. should be subsidising the Treasury to the extent that it does and that I.T.A. should draw money from the Treasury in various ways and at the expense of the licence payers, and then advertise its programmes as being the only free television service. In those circumstances, and when one considers the way in which this tax will bear on many people in the community, I am hopeful that, while maintaining the right in principle to tax television, my right hon. Friend will indicate what i believe to be the correct course and urge the Committee not to follow the Government in the Division Lobbies tonight.

The Rev. LI. Williams: I oppose the retention of this Clause in the Bill for many reasons, some of which have been forcefully adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). I also feel that a strong case can be made out—as it has been this evening —for opposing this Clause because of the injustice which will be caused to many thousands of old-age pensioners, for whom this extra £1 television duty will prove iniquitous.
We have heard moving pleas on behalf of the handicapped people, and if they did not succeed in touching the hearts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, surely the second appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) should have done so. There is


another reason which I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee, and it relates to the position of Wales. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in the North-East have complained, and rightly, about the lack of service which they have received both in regard to sound and television reception. But they cannot complain at the way in which they have been allowed to state their case this evening. It has been left almost to the last before the voice of Wales is heard.
With all respect to the North-East, I believe our case is a much stronger one, because after all we are speaking not for a region but for a nation—a proud nation in which 800,000 people still speak a language which is the oldest spoken language in Europe. In recent months we have suffered an injustice in television reception in the Principality. We were receiving programmes at a good viewing hour, between six and seven at night, when our workmen had returned from their occupations, our housewives were usually free to relax for an hour or so, and children were free to participate in the pleasures of television.
That hour has been taken from us, and the only Welsh television now being received in Wales is at the very awkward time of 1 p.m. to 1.45 p.m. on a Sunday. We are very much concerned, because during that period we are having our dinner or luncheon. This is a real injustice. We also suffer from a tremendous amount of poor sound reception which occurs in those regions of Wales where the language is at its strongest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Chancellor has gone out.

The Rev. LI. Williams: When I refer to the language being at its strongest, I refer to its strongest vantage point from the standpoint of those who love the country.
With reference to sound reception—I shall anticipate you, Sir Gordon, before you rule me out of order, the extra £1 on the licence, as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) and accepted by the Chair, covers both television and sound. I think your predecessor in the Chair admitted that that

came into the scope of this discussion. There are areas in Wales where it is almost impossible to hear Welsh programmes distinctly at all.

Sir I. Fraser: What a wonderful thing.

The Rev. LI Williams: That is typical of the cloddish English mentality that Welsh people have to put up with. Sometimes I marvel at the strangeness of the English sense of humour. I do not think it is particularly funny to other people. It might account for the approach to small nations sometimes being particularly unpopular. We have had a sample of the reason for that unpopularity abroad.
In the evening, we have perpetual interference from some station which I believe is in East Germany, and we have a mixture of Welsh and German. German is a proper language to understand and listen to, as is Welsh, but a mixture of both is not particularly pleasant or helpful. If constituencies in the North-East harbour a sense of grievance, and it is obvious that they do, that grievance is mainly based on the fact that hitherto they have not received I.T.A. programmes.
I do not know that we in Wales are particularly concerned about that, but we believe that the Welsh form of entertainment is something worth preserving. We believe we are being deprived because of the unwillingness of the authorities— and we fear the future unwillingness of the authorities, despite this extra £1— to make it possible for us in the Principality to have more hours of television and sound broadcasting, and a more varied type of programme.
10.15 p.m.
If I were allowed to decide for myself, my opposition to the extra 11 is so strong that I would force the matter to a Division, but in some cases, perhaps, we are not allowed to decide these things for ourselves.

Mrs. Mann: I would decide it for myself.

The Rev. LI. Williams: I have always accepted the guidance of those who know best in these things I am trying to show that my opposition is not "phoney." This is not a debating point I feel deeply that Wales has not had a fair crack of the


whip. It is gross injustice to impose an extra £1 charge on television viewers and wireless listeners in Wales. The Financial Secretary is a Welshman; the Economic Secretary represents Flint, West; the Assistant Postmaster-General represents a part of Liverpool, a city with more Welsh people in it than in any large town in North Wales; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also represents a Welsh division. Surely between them they can do something about the principality in this matter.

Mr. Collins: As the debate has proceeded we have heard expressed a unity of interest between Scotland, the North-East of England and Wales which is likely to prove invincible. I support the pleas which have been uttered that people should not be compelled to pay for something which they do not get. My hon. Friends have put an unanswerable case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ross-endale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred to one of the most important and significant things, certainly in the long-term, with regard to the Clause. It is the fact that the tax of £1 is an Excise Duty imposed on a licence. I wonder whether the Economic Secretary can quote any precedents. I cannot immediately think of any. There are no such precedents in the case of dog or gun licences.
I should like to know whether the Government's proposal creates a precedent. If so, it is a very dangerous one, particularly for the future of broadcasting and television. The most dangerous aspect is that, however much we may say that the licence fee is £3 and the Excise duty £1, the attitude of people will be that it costs them £4 for their television and wireless licence, and in return for the extra £1 they will expect something in the way of better or more varied programmes. However, it seems to me that not a penny of the extra revenue will go to the B.B.C.
In fact, the imposition may well serve as a barrier to the further improvement and expansion of the television programme. If the demand by the public results in decisions to expand the service, more revenue will be needed. What is the next step? If more revenue is needed then the cost of the licence will probably rise to £5. The Government should do all they can to make it clear that the B.B.C. will not get any more revenue as a result

of the tax. Indeed, in so far as the addition may, at least temporarily, curtail the demand for licences, the B.B.C's revenue may actually fall.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) pointed out, for the next few years the B.B.C.'s income is to be 87½ per cent, of the net licence revenue; that is, the revenue from the £3 licence after deducting the 8½ to 10 per cent, which the Post Office will take for management, and after deducting the further 12½ per cent. which the Treasury will take. Therefore, the expansion which we all want to see can be paid for only out of an increased licensed revenue. Here the B.B.C. is at a disadvantage with commercial television, which is independent of the Treasury, although subsidised, and which has no limit to its income except what the advertisers are prepared to pay.
The B.B.C. is quite rightly regarded as a public service. It is expected to carry the considerable cost of developments and of what, for want of a better term, I would call public service programmes. First, there is the completion, of which we have heard so much tonight, of the coverage of the present television service. That will be extremely costly. Secondly, there is the extension of facilities for the provision of television programmes in London and the regions, the introduction and development of V.H.F. broadcasting, and the development of the full scope, variety and quality of programmes in sound and television.
In October, the B.B.C. will start a school television programme which, by 1958, will mean five programmes a week at a cost of well over £100,000. I think that that is a very necessary public service, but it is on a totally different basis from commercial television, where school programmes are being put on in order to get extra advertising in the evenings. Again, in October, the B.B.C. will be doing a televised agricultural programme. That is a very useful public service, but it bites very deep into the B.B.C.'s budget. In addition, there is the very high cost of Eurovision. All this is in the face of at least £500,000 extra cost of salaries and wages resulting from competition with commercial television, and an additional £600,000 arising from the necessity to increase television hours up to some 55 a week.
That means that the B.B.C., which is not badly off at present, will be in a position of extreme difficulty. Expansion is to be stopped, there is to be great difficulty about finding the money for programmes which the public very rightly demand, and for services in various parts of the country which have been men-tioned in this debate, and which the public will expect. But, whatever we may say here, the public will believe that they are paying the extra £1 for television and are not getting anything for it.
That is why I say that this is an extremely dangerous precedent. It will place a halting hand on the development of television and broadcasting, and I think that it is a very stupid thing to do. We all know, for example, what has happened to the Road Fund. The Chancellor's predecessors have regularly raided this Fund, which was originally provided for roads, and now we have not any good roads. If television follows that example, I am afraid that we shall not have any good programmes.
I should like the Economic Secretary, if he is to reply, to say whether he has considered this aspect of the matter, and what his attitude is likely to be if some of the forecasts I have made are justified, as I think they will be, in the next twelve months or so. The B.B.C. has a capital programme of some £5 million a year, and it plans for five years ahead. Well, within the next five years, a decision will have to be taken as to whether there is to be a second television programme. Where is the money to come from for that; for it will, indeed, need more money? Will that mean another £1 on the licence? Will the public have to pay again? As regards colour television opinions vary, but it seems absolutely certain that it will come as a possibility for the public—I know we have already seen a demonstration of it here—within the next five or six years.
The step which the Chancellor has taken in imposing an Excise duty on a licence is a wrong way of going about it. If he had to have extra revenue in this way. he should have gone about it so as not to put this artificial barrier in the way of the development of sound and television broadcasting in this country. People have a right to expect that they will be permitted to enjoy these great

discoveries and not be frustrated by artificial tax barriers.
The whole Committee was shocked by the Chancellor's dusty answer to the pleas which were made from this side for relief for handicapped and old people. He said, first, that the cost would be negligible, and then rode off on the excuse, which convinced no one, that the matter would be difficult to arrange, adding an insult to the whole people that, if relief were given to the elderly, everyone's television licence would be in the name of his grandmother.
Unless we get a more satisfactory answer from the Government, we shall signify the displeasure with which we have received what has already been offered to us in the proper manner in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Willey: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I have your guidance? For some time now, we have been discussing television in the absence of both the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General. Is there any way in which we can convey to the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General that we do not wish to continue the discussion without their being present with us?

The Chairman: That is not really a point of order for me.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order. It is quite unusual, I think, for the House of Commons, on a Finance Bill, to be debating any industry when the Minister responsible is not present. The point has often come up in connection, for instance, with the cotton industry; the President of the Board of Trade has always been most courteous in attending whenever he could. As it has turned out, the debate we have had on this particular Clause has, to a large extent, related to the quality and service of television broadcasting, and, although I am sure that the Financial Secretary will pass matters on to the responsible Ministers—I see one of them arriving now— it is not really good enough, if I may say so, for things merely to be passed on in that way. I welcome the arrival of the Assistant Postmaster-General, and I shall not now find it necessary, Sir Charles, to ask you to accept a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Powell: I ought to put on record that, during the whole of this debate except for a minute or two, one or other of the Post Office Ministers has been present on the Front Bench; they have been here for a very much greater part of the debate than has the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. Sir Charles. Were the points of order replied to?

The Chairman: To start with, there was really not a point of order, and, if there had been, it rectified itself, I thought.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Powell: Some six weeks ago, in the Budget debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said:
 I think we are bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman"—
that is to say, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
 that we do not see anything very unfair in the proposed impost on television."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1957; Vol. 387, c. 1151.]
He did go on to reserve his position in regard to old-aage pensioners, bedridden people, and so on: but on the principle he stated on behalf of the party opposite that he saw nothing very unfair in the proposed impost on television. That has not been the point of view which has been heard from the opposite side of the Committee in the course of this debate. It is true that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) made a valiant attempt to get his right hon. Friend out of the difficulty; but the fact is that this is not the first occasion when a right hon. Gentleman opposite has found himself deserted by his troops when he recognised the Tightness of what was being done by the Government.
The fairness of this measure was clearly set out by my right hon. Friend in the Budget debate where he pointed out that television had come
 to be a powerful competitor with other entertainments …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 989.]
and particularly with the cinema, and that it could not be regarded as fair that of two forms of entertainment so closely comparable and competitive as the

cinema and television one should bear a quite substantial duty and the other none at all.
It has been suggested several times in the debate that the new duty will be unfair to the B.B.C., in that it will be viewed as an increase of the licence fee to £4; in other words, an increase of what the viewer is paying to the B.B.C.

Mr. Hale: I do not want to delay the Committee—I do not want to make a speech—but the hon. Gentleman really has quoted the Chancellor somewhat incorrectly. What the Chancellor said was that some forms of entertainment are expanding and that as they expand they affect the profit of the other types. He then justified this tax by saying that, because one was expanding and the other was not, he was going to transfer the tax. Apparently, the theory was that people would sell their television sets because, of course, unless they sold their television sets they would have £1 a year less to spend on the cinema.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman first quoted a different point from my right hon. Friend's speech, and then he inserted an argument of his own. I was referring to my right hon. Friend's statement in column 989 of the OFFICIAL REPORT about the competitive position of these two entertainments and the unfairness of the situation in which one was subject to a duty and the other was not.
Reverting to the point of unfairness to the B.B.C., great care will be taken to keep absolutely distinct these two payments and to cause it to appear upon the face of the piece of paper which the viewer will receive that the sound and television licence fee remains as heretofore at £3 and that there is a quite separate duty of £1 imposed upon that payment. In fact, the figure "£4" will not appear in the document at all.
A good deal of the debate has been directed to the argument that, because in some areas there is bad reception of sound broadcasting and because in other areas there is an absence at present of an alternative television programme— which I notice is described in the Amendment on the paper as an area
… not yet covered by commercial television 


—therefore there ought to be some proportionate or corresponding reduction in the duty. In the first place, it would, of course, be quite impossible in collecting a duty to vary the amount according to the reception which might be expected by the person taking out the licence. One would have to endeavour to draw boundaries of regions in which different degrees of reception were obtained, in which different programmes were audible and, of course, there would be the greatest indignation and unfairness caused by the attempt to do so. But apart from this technical absurdity in the suggestion, the licence fee itself, on which the duty is imposed, is not related and never has been related either to the quality of the reception or to the programmes that are received, and it is clearly right that on a fee which is the same in all circumstances the same duty should be imposed.
After all, in levying the Entertainments Duty on admissions to the cinema one charges the same duty on a seat of the same price, whether the film is a good one or a bad one, or whether the seat is in such a position that the film can hardly be seen at all. Therefore, there is no case whatever for connecting with the amount of the duty the reception in different parts of the country or the programmes which are available in different regions.

Mr. Ainsley: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is the responsibility of the Postmaster-General to see that where people who live in outlying districts have suitable television sets they should be provided with coverage in that area?

Mr. Powell: That is certainly a question for the Postmaster-General. What I have just been saying is the answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in relation to subsections (4), (5) and (6). Under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts— and I shall refer to these three subsections of Clause 2 in order—the Postmaster-General has the right, for special reasons, to issue a licence normally issued for a year for a shorter or longer period than a year instead; he has the right, upon the surrender of an unexpired licence, to issue another licence in lieu of it; and he has the right—and this refers to the

third of the three subsections—to accept the surrender of an unexpired licence and to make some reduction on it.
Those being the powers of the Postmaster-General in relation to these licences, it is clearly necessary that in levying the duty one should provide that where he exercises those powers the duty is equitably varied accordingly. What the circumstances are in which the licence fee is varied, or the issue of the licence is varied, is entirely a matter for the Postmaster-General. What I am concerned with is to ensure that where he uses his powers to vary the fee or conditions or character of the licence, the duty is equitably adjusted accordingly.
A substantial point has been made by hon. Members opposite of the criticism that to levy a duty on a television licence is in a sense to put a tax upon education in view of the educational character of many television programmes. Indeed, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) went so far as to say that he regarded television as an element in the social services. That is in a sense true, but it applies equally to the competitive and comparable entertainment of the cinema. Indeed, forty-eight hours ago we were saying in this Chamber that it was difficult to deny to a great many cinema entertainments an educational character, and we were asserting that the cinema in many parts of the country performed a social function. But it has always been accepted by both sides of the Committee that admissions to the cinema were a proper subject for taxation, and the Party opposite, in the last year of its office, increased the duty on admission to the cinema by the; same amount as that by which it has now been reduced.
Therefore, whatever hon. Members opposite have said in the debate, it is generally recognised, outside as well as inside the Committee, that television viewing forms a suitable subject for the imposition of duty; that this duty, which will amount to approximately 4½d. a week, is one which will not, in fact, cause anywhere any appreciable hardship, and that it is a duty which can very properly replace the revenue remitted on sport and the theatre.

Mr. H. Wilson: I do not intend to detain the Committee long, but a number


of substantial points have been raised in the latter stages of the debate on which, I think, something ought to be said from this bench. First of all, there has been some disposition during the debate to relate this tax to the growth of commercial television. I am bound to say that I am a little doubtful about this. I expressed the view earlier today that those who have to watch commercial television should, perhaps, be compensated for it rather than taxed for it.
There is a point about commercial television that the Committee ought to bear in mind which has a bearing on the arguments used. It is that the whole country, in fact, is paying for commercial television on a considerable scale, because, of course, the cost of some of this fantastic advertising is entering into the cost of the advertised goods which we buy. Therefore, there is some support for the argument that this is making the viewer pay twice or three times over.
It has been pointed out that the viewer is paying by his licence and by the payment of Purchase Tax. As my hon. Friend pointed out in considerable detail, the viewer is also paying on the cost of the goods which are advertised on television and he is now asked to pay on this.
I said during the Budget debate—and the Financial Secretary quoted me quite correctly—that I did not see anything very unfair in this tax though, of course, I reserved the position of old-age pensioners, bedridden persons and others who have been the subjects of debate earlier today.
I wish to deal in particular with three points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in his very persuasive and amusing speech, made a great deal of the question of Purchase Tax. A very heavy rate of Purchase Tax is involved when a television set is bought, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) demonstrated with the very graphic figures which she gave, there is, of course, a further element of Purchase Tax whenever a substantial repair becomes necessary. The argument as far as that is concerned is, of course, in favour of a reduction of Purchase Tax rather than an argument on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
While I would not even dream of getting out of order by talking about subsequent Amendments, perhaps I may point out for the benefit of my hon. Friend that the Opposition have already tabled an official Amendment on that Purchase Tax group which includes television sets.
Having said that, two substantial points remain. Both points have been made many times both in this debate and in debates on earlier Amendments dealt with by the Committee. The first is one on which all of us on this side of the Committee feel extremely strongly. It is the question of old-age pensioners, disabled persons, bedridden persons, the deaf and dumb and the particular interest of blind persons even in television.
We have voted on that question today. We gave the Government notice the day after the Chancellor announced his Budget that we were going to pursue the point. It is a matter of regret to all on this side of the Committee that the vote today went the way it did, and I must inform the Committee that we shall pursue the matter further at later stages of the Bill. We strongly urged this afternoon that there should be a special exemption for the groups that featured in the various Amendments moved by my hon. Friend and which, unfortunately, were voted on without success.
10.45 p.m.
The second substantial point which has been made by hon. Members from many parts of the country is that there are certain areas which do not get either very good reception or very good programmes, or the substantial point that certain areas have no alternative programme. It has been suggested by hon. Members on behalf of the North-East Coast, Scotland and Wales—and to some extent other areas are affected, too—that it is unfair to impose a tax on those areas when they are not getting adequate service in return for the licence fee which they already pay.
I think the whole Committee will understand the feelings of my hon. Friends who have made this point, which is a substantial point. It was a matter of regret to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, Sir Charles, that you did not feel able to select for debate the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member


for Coatbridge and Airdrie, because that was specifically directed to this point. There was an Amendment down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and others, although unfortunately that was confined to two geographical counties and the boroughs within those counties and it would not have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie or hon. Members from Welsh constituencies; whereas the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie would have dealt specifically with the grievance which has been raised on behalf of all these areas during the debate on this Question.
I cannot ask you your reason for not selecting that Amendment, Sir Charles, and if I asked you would not reply, because it is always understood that no reply need or can be given to such a question.

The Chairman: I should not, of course, give the reason, but if hon. Members put down Amendments after I have had my conference, it makes it very difficult for me to deal with them.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept that without hesitation, Sir Charles, but, with great respect, we have our Parliamentary rights if we have a grievance. There is a logical step to take in respect of that grievance.

The Chairman: Yes. Put down a vote of censure on me.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If I did that it could not take effect until next week. There is action which we could take tonight without implicating you at all, Sir Charles. If the grievances are legitimate, we have our Parliamentary rights to take them to the logical conclusion. Is not that so?

The Chairman: If an Amendment is not selected it cannot be discussed.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept that, and I have proved over a long period that I accept Rulings, but there are two Division Lobbies.

Mr. Wilson: It is not often that I find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent.

South (Mr. Ellis Smith), but if the step which he has in mind for dealing with the fact that you did not select the Amendment, Sir Charles, is to propose that you do leave the Chair forthwith, I should be glad to join him in it, as I am sure you would, because we remember the previous experience when you were moved out of the Chair on a Finance Bill, with disastrous results for the Bill. Nothing would give greater satisfaction to the Committee than that you should be moved out of the Chair and that the Bill should fall.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. We could use our Parliamentary rights to ask your permission, Sir Charles, to move, That the Question be now put.

The Chairman: I should not accept it at the moment, but I think we are coming near to that point.

Mr. Wilson: The Question would have been put but for the points of order of my hon. Friend. I was saying—and I say to my hon. Friend in order that he can decide how to exercise his Parliamentary rights—that it was a matter of regret to many of us that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie was not selected. I had reason to think, and you have confirmed, Sir Charles, that that was because it had been put on the Order Paper rather late.
However, as I have already said, it will certainly be the desire of the Opposition to press the point further in the appropriate way, and the appropriate way is to ensure that my hon. Friend's Amendment is tabled again on Report, when we shall press very strongly that it be selected on that occasion and when it will have been tabled in plenty of time.
That, I suggest, is the way to deal with the very strong grievance of my hon. Friends from the North-East Coast, Wales, Scotland and elsewhere. Not having had an opportunity to deal with the specific problem today, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to deal with it on Report. If that is done, I think that there is no case for now dividing the Committee on this Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(CONTINUATION OF EXPIRING DUTIES ON HOPS, ETC.)

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Willey: We should not allow the Clause to go by without making some inquiries. I am not completely satisfied that the Clause is necessary. Its purpose is to continue the present duties on hops, which hitherto have been continued for a temporary period.
As the Clause refers to the origin of the duties, I want to remind the Committee of the circumstances in which they were first imposed. I remind my hon. Friends that here was a Division upon the proposal made by the Government. The Government proposed that we should impose the duties for a period of four years. The Opposition divided against that on the ground that it was unnecessary to impose the duties for a period longer than a year.
It was regarded as a temporary measure, as I am sure the Chancellor will appreciate, because the duties were imposed for a specific purpose. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) said:
 The essence of control is that it is temporary and is to continue only for such time as the hop farmers would be able to re-establish the hop gardens which they had grubbed for patriotic reasons during the War.
The then Minister of Agriculture expressed himself less graphically. He said:
 It is designed in the interests of growers to enable them to resume the position they occupied before the war.
The war of which they were speaking was, of course, the 1914–18 war. We all know that it upset hop-growing in this country.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: It made it.

Mr.Willey: The hon. Member can join our discussion later. It was understood at the time, in 1925, that the protection was needed because the hop industry had been upset by the 1914–18 war. It was not disputed that this was a measure to aid the hop growers, but whereas the Government said that they envisaged a four-year period, the Opposition then thought that a one-year period was sufficient.
The other reason which the Opposition gave was for opposing the imposition of these duties for four years was, again to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland:
 The Government can adopt more effective measures than this miserable duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1925; Vol. 184, c. 2158–9.]
That has become a matter which is no longer one of contention because effective steps were subsequently taken to assist the hop growers. The first marketing scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, was the Hop Marketing Scheme, 1932. I imagine that it is commonly assumed that the hop marketing scheme has been a great success. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) would suggest the introduction of free enter prise to the hop-growing industry. I think that this industry —

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is extraordinarily failing in his researches in the matter. He has evidently neglected to refer to the important debates we had on this topic on 19th May, 1953, when, as the representative in this House of the second largest hop-growing constituency in the country, I made my position perfectly clear in this context.

Mr. Willey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear again. Of course, I am fully aware of that discussion.
We are dealing with the duty, and I want to make clear the circumstances in which the duty was first imposed and the steps which have been taken subsequently. With apparently the exception of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, everyone is agreed that the hop marketing scheme has aided the industry and the controls which are exercised have benefited the industry. It is in these circumstances that I ask whether the Government are convinced that the continuance of this duty is really necessary. This protection is obviously worth far less than in 1925. It is not an ad valorum protection. If this is justified on the grounds that the conditions are the same notwithstanding the creation of the Hop Marketing Board, I should have thought that there would have been an argument for substituting he present provisions by an ad valorum duty. But the Chancellor does not do hat, and it seems to me that this is an example of the endemic laziness within


the Treasury. They are merely wishing to avoid the review of the duty.

Mr. Hale: I hope that before he concludes my hon. Friend will say something about the public interest in this matter, and when I refer to the public interest I do not mean the public houses but the general public. This beastly substance was introduced into British beer in the eighteenth century to turn it into modern deer.

Mr. Willey: I am happy to note that my hon. Friend evidently desires to take part in the debate—

Mr. Hale: I do not desire to engage in anything.

Mr. Willey: —but I wish to make my own speech in my own way.
This duty if it is to be justified is to be justified as being in the interests and necessary for the protection of the industry. The first point I wish to put to the Chancellor is a simple one. How can the duty remaining at the same rate as in 1925 now be of any real protection to the hop industry, and is it a fact that the Chancellor is doing this because it is the easiest course for him to make permanent a duty which is no longer serving any real purpose?
I put these three further points to the Chancellor. Will he give us the figures for the import of hops over recent years. What are the figures of the quantities of hops that we have imported over the past few years and the value? Has the Chancellor borne in mind the fact that if this protection is necessary to the interests of the hop-growing industry, then, on the face of it, it seems inadequate? Is it a fact that over the past few years we have had a considerable export trade in hops running to about £1½ million in value? What are the views of the Chancellor on the export trade in hops? Does he regard it as a valuable trade that we should encourage? If so, does he not think that the continuing of a protective measure which is not serving any real purpose is the sort of factor which will adversely affect our trade?
The Chancellor is the chairman of a working party which is discussing the vexed question of agriculture in the Free Trade Area. There are all sorts of rumours about that, and I do not wish to

press the right hon. Gentleman about them tonight. For instance, there are rumours about what may be done with regard to wine. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that in the context of these discussions he may not be helped if he proposes to make permanent a measure which is unnecessary.
I should like to know whether the Chancellor considered these matters and weighed their importance in the balance before introducing the Clause, or whether the Clause has just slipped in because a lazy bureaucracy has taken the easiest course of making permanent something which it is not justifiable to make permanent.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sure there is no lazy bureaucracy associated with my right hon. Friend's Measure. I rise at this late hour only for a moment to defend as vigorously as I am able the very constructive proposal contained in the Clause. It is a matter of considerable interest to my constituency. Large acreages of western Worcestershire are devoted to hops, and mine is the second largest hop-growing constituency in the country, the largest being in Kent.
In 1925 a protective duty was introduced for hops. In the terms of the statute of that year, it was renewable every four years. It has been renewed on no fewer than seven occasions up to and including 1953. In 1953 the Socialist Opposition moved against the proposal to renew for four years, and suggested in an Amendment that the period should be reduced to one year. They were defeated by the narrow margin of ten votes. It is significant that the Amendment of 19th May, 1953, was moved by a Socialist Opposition Member, notorious for his antipathy towards the brewers, the then Member of Parliament for Horn-church, Mr. Geoffrey Bing.
All of us who know anything of the activities of the hop growers recognise that the Hop Marketing Board, created in 1932 as the first attempt at organised marketing under a statute of the previous year, was a means of assuring constructive, good and orderly marketing for the products of this important industry. It should not in any way be associated with the measure of protection against continental hops which it was thought in 1925 that our hop growing industry ought,


because of its depressed state, to be given by means of a proper tariff. I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the Committee have ever quarrelled with the principle of the tariff, but only, as in the case of 1953, with the duration of the period of renewal.
Today we seek in the Clause to make the tariff permanent. It is a measure which will give long-term security to an important industry, one which in the terms of the Anglo-American Productivity Report on hops, published several years ago, is generally acclaimed as being one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient, among the hop growing industries of the world; and we are not the only beer-drinking nation in the world, though we like our beer warmer and generally stronger in gravity than many of our foreign competitors. I hope the Committee will give an enthusiastic welcome to the permanent protection to the hops industry which is suggested in the Clause.
There is one point about the future of the duty which was touched upon lightly by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey). I should like to know whether we may be quite sure that there will be no alteration of the tariff in the event of the European Common Market coming to fruition. I think there can be no alteration, because in col. 1890 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 19th May, 1953, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred to hops as an agricultural product. So long as my right hon. Friend is in a position to confirm that hops are an agricultural product and would, therefore, be excluded from the arrangements with respect to the European Common Market and any agreements that we make with Western European countries under it, I think all hon. Members in the Committee may rest assured that a permanent duty and degree of protection will be given to this very important industry, important to my constituency. and also supremely important to the British way of life, the British character and the distinctive taste and strength of British ales.

Mr. Powell: This short debate has at any rate produced one novelty, and that is the attachment of a very unusual adjective to the Treasury. One is used to it being described as "flint-hearted," "stony," and so on, but it is unusual

and refreshing to hear it described merely as "lazy." The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) pointed out that the context of this duty has completely changed since it was first imposed in 1925. Indeed, the very fact that it has been renewed every four years from that time to this is evidence of the entirely different purpose which it has come to serve over the years since then.
That change of purpose is associated with an entire change in the legislative treatment of the agricultural industry, and certainly dates, so far as hop growing is concerned, as far back as the establishment of the Hop Marketing Board in 1932. The reasons for renewing and making this duty permanent today are the same as those for renewing it under the party opposite in 1949 and under the present Government in 1953. The duty performs a useful function in its present form, and neither the Hop Marketing Board nor the brewing industry have made representations for it to be increased or reduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) asked what would be its position in relation to the European Free Trade Area. I can assure him that statements referring to agricultural products most certainly cover the hop.

Mr. Nabarro: I am much obliged.

Mr. Willey: I am also obliged to the Financial Secretary for his reply, though I am still not entirely satisfied, because the absence of representations from both sides of the industry would seem to indicate that the duty is not playing an effective part, because it is obviously of far less value as the monetary value of the duty has declined. My main concern was that this may aggravate our export trade, but the Financial Secretary has not replied to this. I hope he will, at any rate, bear this in mind and see that the export trade be builtup and not prejudiced. While expressing my appreciation to the Financial Secretary for his reply, notwithstanding the fact that he is making permanent the provisions, I hope he will keep the matter under review.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(AUSTRALIAN TRADE AGREEMENT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I cannot let this Clause go by without a word of protest about the method of enacting the Agreement with Australia. What has really happened is that the major changes being made in Commonwealth preference between us and Australia are in a White Paper and not in the Bill. This is a great departure from the practice of 1951, for when a somewhat similar agreement was then made with Pakistan it was set out in great detail in Schedule 4 of the Finance Act, 1951. It seems much better that these things should be in the Finance Bill, where we can see the whole thing in one place, and, incidentally, where in future years it can be seen in a single Finance Act rather than in a White Paper.
The White Paper (Cmnd. 91), is really not very informative, because Schedule B is only intelligible if one has in one's possession the Australian Customs Tariff. This is the part that affects us in this country—the reduction of Australian preference on British exports to Australia. One cannot deduce from this White Paper, what those changes are to be without getting hold of the Australian Customs Tariff, which is not something very easy for Members of this House to do. There are a number of specific references that could have been translated at that date into clear statements of what the effect would be. In the case of the Pakistan Trade Agreement that was done—it was included in the Finance Act, 1951. The exact amounts of the preference rates and so forth were set out.
Of course, the effects have been set out at somewhat greater length in the Board of Trade Journal of 23rd March last, but it really is not good enough to legislate by reference, first, to a White Paper, and then to a Board of Trade Journal. It is very important that these things should be available to people now and in the future. I hope that the Chancellor will give serious consideration to inserting, on Report, an Amendment which would put a Schedule into this Bill equivalent to that which

was put into the 1951 Act concerning the Pakistan Trade Agreement. It would be useful.
Now I turn to the merits of this Agreement. Of course, its essence is that we maintain our preference on Australian exports to this country, and Australia reduces her preferences on British exports to Australia. It is, of course, an unfavourable agreement in that we lose preferences that we now enjoy, or have them reduced, whereas we continue to give the same preferences to Australia as we do now.
It is, of course, quite clear and true that, as Australia has argued, the original Ottawa Agreements have worked out somewhat to her disadvantage, and more than was intended by both sides at the time. None the less, I think that this Agreement is worse than we need have had. We could have had a better one.
Here, I should like to echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey)—who I see, is no longer with us—and say that this is an example of the laziness of the Treasury. Australia protested for several years about this movement of the Commonwealth preference system to her disadvantage, and made it clear that she wanted better preference, of one sort or another, for her exports to this country, and only wanted a reduction in Australian preference on British goods as a last resort.
This was not taken seriously by the Government. It dillied and dallied, and the consequence is that Australia was forced to resort to what she really did not want to do, namely, the reduction in the preference on British exports to Australia. I have no doubt that we could have saved our preference in Australia, at any rate to a greater extent than is the case now, had we been prepared to do the sort of things that Australia wanted two or three years ago, namely, to give by other means, such as long-term agreements, proper preferences in our home market here on Australian goods.
The Government cannot argue here that we cannot have long-term agreements because they would lead to rationing, State retail trading and all the rest. We have a Commonwealth sugar agreement with Australia, and we have a Common-wealth


meat agreement with Australia, and neither has led to rationing or State retail trading. If we had had long-term agreements with Australia, particularly for dairy products and, above all, for wheat, we should not have had so unfavourable a trade agreement as we have now.
The Government do not like long-term agreements. They keep them as few in number as they can, and they are now paying the price on the preference on British goods to Australia. And all they can do by Article VI of the Agreement is to give a very vague and embarrassed undertaking to Australia to increase the intake of Australian wheat into this country—that our Government will consider sympathetically any measures which may be found practicable from time to time, having regard to their international obligations to improve the opportunities for the sale of Australian wheat in the United Kingdom. That is a feeble offer to Australia compared with the sort of agreement which we have for meat.
11.15 p.m.
Then, in Article VI, it is affirmed that it is our desire and expectation that we will import 750.000 tons of wheat from Australia. I should like to ask the Government how far that undertaking is working out. It came into operation towards the end of last year and the period began during that year in which we said that we would import 750,000 tons instead of the previous half a million. How is this aspiration, this desire and expectation working out? After all, it is no substitute for any long-term agreement such as would have given Australia the sort of compensating arrangement which would have enabled her to continue preferences in her own markets.
We read in the newspapers today the details of what this Agreement will mean. In The Times and the Financial Times there are short accounts of Mr. McEwen's speech to the Australian Parliament in Canberra, and it appears that there is to be a reduction in the United Kingdom's preference margins on more than 800 items worth last year about £A160 millions. We are told that among the 800 items on which tariffs have been reduced are drugs and chemicals, tinplate, agricultural and mining machinery,

tractors, generators, and many other things, including goods of one sort or another from carpets to high-tension cables.
What does this mean in terms of cash to British exports? How much does the Government expect our exports to decline as a result of these reductions in preferences? Mr. McEwen said that one purpose in the Australian mind in reducing these preferences was that it would help the competitive position of countries which had been good customers of Australia; those which have bought more from Australia than they had sold her. These include Japan, France, Germany, and Italy, so that these competitors of ours will be encouraged to sell to the displacement of quite important exports from this country into the Australian market.
This all part of an alarming pattern that is developing. Over and over again we find that the Government talk about our great interest in Commonwealth trade and so forth but when it comes to deeds it will not do those things which will really help Commonwealth trade, but, on the contrary, do those things which lead to these unsatisfactory and rather alarming agreements.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Birch): The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that this Agreement is not in the Schedules to this Bill and asked that it should be available. I would remind him that the heads of Agreement were in HANSARD on 12th November last, and that it is available in a fairly handy form in Cmnd 91. At the same time, we will see whether it would be a reasonable thing to put such an Agreement in the Schedules, but I do not want it to be taken that I am committing myself on that.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke rather unfavourably about this Agreement and appeared to think that if we had acted differently the Australians would not have wanted to reduce preferences; but they did so for the simple reason that they wanted to get their capital goods cheaply. The effect of the Agreement is that on capital goods we have a minimum preference of 1½ per cent. and there is a minimum preference on other goods of 10 per cent. Those preferences cover 90 per cent. of all our exports to


Australia. Not only that, but under the Agreement these preferences are fixed for five years, whereas under the Ottawa Agreements they could be terminated on six months' notice.
I would say that the new Agreement gives us a very good chance of competing over the next five years on very reasonable and quite favourable terms. The right hon. Gentleman, I thought, was hankering after a bulk-purchase agreement for wheat, and he questioned how far this Agreement between the millers and the Australian Wheat Board for taking 750,000 tons a year was working. It has not been going for very long, but as far as I know it is working well. He then drew attention to the news in the papers that the Australians, very naturally, are using this Agreement as they intended to.
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any details, because the full details arrived in London, I am told, only late tonight. No doubt if he wishes to ask any Questions on that, he can put them down to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Hale: It is a classic example of the ham-handed way in which we handle Commonwealth affairs that we discuss an important Agreement with one of the most friendly and co-operative of the Commonwealth Territories commencing at ten minutes to eleven and that the Minister rises to close the discussion the moment one speech has been made. Really, if we are to retain the respect and the co-operation of Commonwealth Territories, which has been given in abundant measure in years gone by, we ought to treat them with a little more courtesy than this. Trade arrangements with them are matters which need deliberation.
I have had the good fortune to make one visit to Australia. It was while the Labour Government were in office and, because I propose to make criticisms, I say frankly that we made mistakes and sometimes we were confronted with the choice of two comparative evils. I was tremendously impressed, in the course of five or six weeks' travel all over the Commonwealth, by two things. One was the wealth of affection and the desire for understanding that prevailed throughout

the Commonwealth, and the other was the complete misunderstanding of our varied commercial points of view which existed then. There were all sorts of petty grievances at the time.
They were treating us with very great generosity at the time, as hon. Members will remember. Loans of money and cargoes of goods were sent by individual Australians to individual Englishmen whom they did not know, and so on. They were trying to help us in our shortage, and they wondered why we were exporting chocolate to them. I am bound to say that I wondered, too. They were trying to send us meat, but they were short of tinplate, and they wondered why they could not get tinplate from us. Of course, there were substantial reasons for that, but it showed that if we wish to retain the great understanding between the Commonwealth countries, which is one of the most powerful forces for good in the world today, we ought to have far more constant consultation than is contained in an occasional Prime Ministers' conference or in hard bargaining between officials over trade agreements.
I do not want to detain the Committee now—it is very late and many people have trains to catch; indeed, I myself am in that position—but I have from time to time suggested that if we can have a consultative Council of Europe we can have a consultative Council of the Dominion Territories. If we really want to retain the co-operation and the good will of the Commonwealth—and certainly in Australia and in Canada one finds it existing in quite an abundant measure—then the constitution of a consultative council which would face these matters would be of the greatest possible value and one of the greatest forces for good.
I do not want to be facetious about an agreement. I appreciate the difficulties. I appreciate that in every trade agreement there will be gains and losses on either side. I appreciate, too, that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the President of the Board of Trade, when negotiating these matters, has to have a very close regard to the interests of Great Britain, he obviously has to show an understanding of the problems of the other side. The very essence of negotiation involves the necessity for understanding on either side.
I would ask the Committee to consider one point. The one agreement that we preserved and did not exclude is contained in Schedule H of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, and this is now brought up at this late hour without much consideration and without much explanation, because, with respect to the President of the Board of Trade, the statement made on 27th February, after the conclusion of the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement was necessarily short. After Questions one does not have an opportunity for prolonged examination.
The declaration in Schedule H of the 1932 Act states:
 1. The present wholesale prices of frozen meat are at a level which has resulted in grave depression in the livestock industries of the United Kingdom and the Dominions. This depression is likely, if continued, to bring about a serious decline in production and consequent ultimate injury to the consumer.
2. Such a position is so serious that it is essential to take whatever steps may appear feasible to raise the wholesale prices of frozen meat in the United Kingdom market to such a level as will maintain efficient production.
Does anyone say that is really meant today?
I do not criticise the Australian Trade Agreement and its effect. It is perfectly good. We talk about a lazy bureaucracy. I do not think it is fair, but it may be a symptom of the fact that Ministers are overworked that we permit these things to be said. I do not want to raise acute political issues. The Minister knows that we on this side of the Committee feel very strongly on the question of bulk purchase and long-term contracts. Had more of that been done in years gone by and had there been consultation we would have seen Australia grow as one of the great raw material producing areas of the earth instead of being reluctantly forced to industrialise itself because the prices of raw materials could not be maintained.
Here is this great fertile country, greatly under-populated, which has to turn to industrialisation, largely financed by American capital, mostly in New South Wales. It has altered its economy and essentially altered its outlook as a nation in world affairs. A policy of encouraging the raw material producer on long-term contract might have

avoided all this. I say it as a Member for a comparatively poor, low-wage constituency, and I have said it on the political platform in my constituency, that though cheap food is, of course, the object of every Government here, to reduce the cost of living, cheap food is driving the producer out of business, as always. We have said that ourselves in 1945 in relation to this country, but we cannot carry out that policy alone if we believe in the integration of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth is to be a force in world affairs.
There have been days when we have been in sight of the whole of this friendly, unbonded association showing a tendency to disintegrate. That is why it is important that we should not discourage a process of long-term buying, stabilisation and maintenance of prices. They are a great contribution that we could make to a cause which does not mean only the prosperity of a nation. They are a contribution to the strengthening of world peace that we should have a balanced economy growing throughout the world.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has told us that we should have a 7½ per cent, or 10 per cent. preference minimum. What sort of cut does that involve in the preference we now have? He gave the impression tonight that we were doing very well out of all this, but what we are getting out of the Agreement is a reduction in the margin of preference. How far is that margin being reduced? It has been on the whole higher than 7½ per cent, and 10 per cent.
I am also not satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman said about taking into consideration giving us more information. Even this White Paper is really extremely uninformative compared with the schedule to the Pakistan Agreement, which we had in 1951. We cannot work out the effects of this on British industry even in the terms of the Agreement without getting hold of the Australian Customs tariff. It is really putting too much on hon. Members for the Government to say that we have got to get hold of the Australian Customs tariff to understand what we are doing in Clause 4 of our own Finance Bill.
11.30 p.m.
We really must have the information available and reasonably handy to us. It was not a satisfactory answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would just think of it. He must put it into a Schedule to the Bill, or explain it in another White Paper—to which I would strongly object—so that we can have at least as much information as we had in 1951 about the similar Agreement with Pakistan.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the facts were just coming in, tonight. It will not be very easy, by ordinary question and answer, to get much information about so complicated a matter as this. The neatest and simplest way, of course, would be to adjourn the debate now so that we could start off next time with this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman would then be in the position, having digested the complicated facts which are coming in by telegram, to give us the information. There is surely no other way short of having another day's debate on it. Question and answer is quite useless for elucidating the details and complications of a very great number of tariff changes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(DUTIES AND DRAWBACKS ON COMPOSITE GOODS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hale: This is an innocuous Clause. It is a curiosity of our procedure that we pass a Clause which empowers one to use a Schedule, and then, in a week or two, we come to a complicated Schedule. Although we all understand the necessity for the Clause and understand that if there is a combined material such as a hair oil which consists of 99 per cent. alcohol, one has to do something about it, because, otherwise, a lot of hair oil would have that alcoholic content.
This goes back to our old friend the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913. Under that Act we have to pass the Resolutions within four days, the Second Reading within ten Parliamentary days of the introduction of the Budget,

and the Finance Bill within four months of the Budget, because, otherwise, the implementation by the Statute of the Ways and Means Resolution that we pass on the day of the Budget will cease to have effect. We should have the difficulty of sitting during the grouse and salmon season and enacting the respective financial legislation to correct the difficulties.

Mr. P. Thomeycroft: Is this on Clause 7?

Mr. Hale: I am on Clause 5, which provides for the collection of a combined tax.
I know that I am out of order in referring to the Schedule —

Mr. Thomeycroft: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hale: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's apology with the magnanimity that I always like to extend to him in these circumstances.
All I want to ask—because we do not know to what extent this procedure is now used—is to what extent are Statutory Instruments passed in accordance with this Clause to provide for the special measure of collecting combined taxes. I gather from the expressions on the faces of the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they do not know. If they do not, then that is a good reason for adjourning the debate now.

Mr. Powell: The purpose of the Clause and the Schedule is to bring this procedure into force for the first time for a whole range of goods, but—and this answers the question—a similar procedure is already in force in respect to sugar which was effected by Section (9) of the Sugar Act, 1956, and that special case is also operated by means of Orders in the same way as this general machinery.

Mr. H. Wilson: Although the hon. Member has explained the purpose of the Clause, there is one important constitutional point which should be raised even at this time of night. I apologise for having to raise it at this time of night, but it is a very important constitutional point which at other times could well occupy the House for many hours. I hope it will not tonight, and I hope that I shall be given the assurances for which I shall ask.
On the Notice Paper there are two Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead). I gather that these have not been selected and that my hon. Friend has been so informed. That is why he was not here to attempt to move them. But the principle contained in them is important constitutionally.
The House has always been extremely jealous of its rights in relation to the taxing power. It has been a cardinal principle of British democracy for hundreds of years that the House of Commons, and only the House of Commons, can initiate taxation, and that no tax may be levied or collected except by the express decision of the House of Commons, nowadays, of course, on the recommendation of one of Her Majesty's Ministers.
Under the Clause, as I understand it, the Treasury may make an appointment by Order. The words are:
 As from such date as the Treasury may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect.
It would be out of order to debate the Second Schedule, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) rightly said, but that Schedule would come into force, and that would affect taxation.
We submit that when the day is nominated by the Treasury for this Order to come into force, a new tax system will be in operation over a very wide range of goods. It would not matter if it were only a narrow range of goods. Even if it were only the hair oil to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West referred, and which he uses so much, the point would still be the same. Whether it covers a wide or a narrow range of goods, if a new system of taxation is to come into force then it should come into force only by the authority of the House of Commons.

Mr. Hale: It would also incorporate Section 59 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, which provides that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise can appoint that the tax can be collected anywhere. The Commissioners could lay down the method of collection and payment of the tax by their own order, outside the Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Wilson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that point, which had escaped me and I am sure had escaped most hon. Members. It is certainly the case that under this Clause, if it is not amended, virtually a new taxation system will be introduced without the authority of the House. I am sure that that is the last thing that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee want to see occur, and I am quite sure that if we were in office and made this proposal, there would have been a very large number of Conservative hon. Members saying that British constitutional rights were in danger—rights going back to the Magna Carta. They would have thought nothing of keeping the Labour Government up until five or six o'clock in the morning discussing this point. We show much more consideration to Her Majesty's Ministers, knowing how overburdened they are, than to keep them up, even on a point of this kind.
I hope that the Chancellor will tell us that he will look at this again. He has not had an opportunity of replying to the Amendments. I have no doubt that very adequate briefs were prepared for him in the Treasury. We shall certainly want to come back to the matter later, but we will be prepared to let the Clause go now if the Chancellor will give us an assurance that he will consider the point. I am sure that he is as jealous as anyone else for the constitutional rights of the House of Commons and that he will consider the matter again and will, if he feels that the point is substantial, introduce an appropriate Amendment on Report.

Mr. Powell: There is no question of the Clause or the Schedule introducing a new taxation system otherwise than by the express authority of the House of Commons, or introducing a change of taxation otherwise than by that authority. It is true that a change in the taxation system, a minor but useful change, is embodied in the Second Schedule, but the Schedule is given its effect by the Bill.
All that the Treasury Order, to which Clause 5 refers, does is to appoint a date on which the new system incorporated in the Bill will come into force. That is all the Order does. It is convenient to be able to know the date on which this will become operative, rather than be dependent on the chance date of a Royal


Assent. Under the Second Schedule the composite rates and the simplified duties are to be prescribed by Treasury Order, but it is specifically laid down that resultant revenue collected and the resultant duties shall not differ in any substantial way from those enacted by Parliament.

Mr. Hale: indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: If the hon. Member will look at the first paragraph of the Second Schedule he will find that it is very closely defined with a view to ensuring that the net effect of the new system is not to vary the weight of the duty to any appreciable extent. I refer him to the wording of the first paragraph. The Orders are subject, exactly like the Orders which I have already mentioned under Section 9 of the Sugar Act, 1956, to annulment by the House. I suggest to the Committee that the constitutional proprieties have been preserved by the manner in which the Schedule and the Clause are drawn.

Mr. H. Wilson: We cannot debate the Second Schedule, but merely make passing references to it. It appears to us that there are several ways in which the Treasury could make an Order affecting this or that trade. I agree that some are circumscribed in saying that where it is more convenient to do it, and where there is no material advantage to the Revenue, of the persons involved, and so on and so forth. But the Orders which can be made certainly appear to alter the taxation system.

Mr. Powell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson: We shall want to be satisfied on this and that may take a long time. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will take a long time to satisfy.
I should much prefer the Government to agree to look again at the matter to make absolutely certain that there is nothing in our case. Perhaps they would be prepared to make a fuller statement at a later date. I am sure that the Financial Secretary is sincere and genuine when he says that he is convinced that there is no change, but we would like to be satisfied about it. I know that we shall be able to debate the Schedule, but it

will not be as easy to move Amendments to the Schedule as to move Amendments to Clause 5 to require positive and affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons.

Mr. Powell: The negative procedure for the Orders we are talking about is laid down in the Schedule itself, so that we shall have the opportunity of discussing that again, if the Committee desires, when we come to the Schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION, &c, BILLS

Mr. Graeme Finlay discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee appointed by the Lords on Consolidation, &c., Bills; Mr. Ronald Bell added.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Mr. Kenneth Robinson discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. George Darling added.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — THERMAL INSULATION (INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
s
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the thermal insulation of industrial buildings, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which, under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act. 1954. as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act. 1956, are payable out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Powell.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COLLIERY SPOIL HEAPS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I wish to raise a matter of considerable concern to all people who reside in or near coal mining areas in the country, namely, the uncontrolled extension of colliery spoil heaps. I am glad to be able to raise this matter in spite of the lateness of the hour. Many hon. Members have mentioned that they have missed their last bus or train. I have already missed mine and at the conclusion of this debate I shall be faced with a long walk through the City of London. That is one of the trials and tribulations which face hon. Members who try to stick to the archaic traditions of this House. I am sorry about it, but it is one of the things that we have to put up with. I am pleased that we have present tonight not only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power. It shows that his Department and the National Coal Board are taking an interest in this matter.
The situation is becoming increasingly serious as more dirt is being extracted and spilled over the countryside than ever before. The position has been reached when we can say that matters are getting out of hand. The area general managers of the National Coal Board are aware of it. In fact, I think that they are sympathetic to the view that all these spoil extensions should be controlled. However, there is no directive from the Coal Board and therefore they dare not act. The nasty, brutish-looking black heaps are completely dominating the scenery in the mining areas, many times creeping up to within a few yards of houses. They spill over on to the main roads, and when there is a heavy downpour of rain, avalanches cascade over the roads, causing much unnecessary inconvenience. The tipping causes a cloud of dust to settle periodically on the mining villages, and with the smoke which comes from many of these burning stacks, life is very unhealthy and grim, as may be imagined.
Public desire and planning knowledge has now reached the stage when we need not tolerate their existence in their present form any longer. Another point is the unscrupulous way in which these spoil heap extensions are gobbling up valuable agricultural land which will be lost for all time. The Minister is now aware of the problem, and I am grateful for his interest and for accepting my invitation to view the problem at first hand. I am grateful also to the Sheffield Telegraph for assisting by publicising the campaign to rid the coal fields of these terrible eyesores. The tour was planned by a West Riding County Council officer, Mr. Arthur Bates, who has done a tremendous amount of work on this problem by experimenting in various ways to find the best method of tackling the growth of spoil heaps and also the elimination of abandoned ones.
In the West Riding playing fields and even sites for factories have been reclaimed from small derelict spoil heaps, contrasting with massive uncontrolled heaps 150 ft. high covering many acres and spoiling the natural beauty of the mining valleys. In the area of Feather-stone the Minister saw a derelict heap 40 ft. high running through the town alongside the road for 1½ miles—a monstrosity. At little cost it could be graded into a protective bank, grassed over, and planted with shrubs and flowers, so that it would transform the district into one of beauty.
A large South Yorkshire colliery has a site of 70 acres, and it is tipping at the rate of 1,000 tons of dirt a day. This rate will soon be increasing to 1,500 tons a day. The heap sprawls right out into the countryside. The Minister saw it, and we agreed that it was an appalling sight.
There are scores of these instances in Yorkshire. Throughout the country there are hundreds. In the West Riding alone there are 96 pits producing about 42 million tons of coal annually. The Board estimates that the waste output is about 30 per cent. of the saleable coal, which means that 12 million tons of waste will be deposited on spoil heaps in Yorkshire each year.
The total acreage of the heaps already amounts to more than 4,000 acres, and it is increasing at the rate of 150 acres a


year. In England and Wales there are about 51,000 acres covered by spoil heaps, and the area is growing at the rate of 500 acres a year The figure is rapidly increasing as we are mining thinner and dirtier seams than previously.
Control is now an urgent necessity. At present there is planning control over new spoil heaps only. There is none whatever over extensions which have taken place and are continuing to take place since the issue of the General Development Order of 1950 which authorised continuation of tipping on land comprised in a site used for the deposit of waste material or refuse on 1st July, 1948.
In the West Riding about one-third of the tips have come under planning control, but the remaining two-thirds continue to operate under the provisions of Class XX of the General Development Order. We should like the Order revoked or amended so that planning permission must be sought for the extensions. That is our first, immediate aim.
The Board has co-operated with a few small schemes, but these are a drop in the ocean compared with the ever-growing scale of the problem. Many local authorities are sorely disturbed at the lack of planning control, so much so that conferences have recently been held to discuss the problem. I now understand that deputations from the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association are to visit the Minister.
We are asking the Board to accept a measure of control over the use of land which already applies to ordinary people. We have no intention of interfering with any of its existing plant or machinery. Our primary object is to bring under control land not at present used for the deposition of waste. In that way the Board will be brought into line with the ordinary citizen, who cannot change the use of land without applying for planning consent. All we ask is that planning consent must be sought for extensions to pit heaps on virgin ground. We should then require the Board to remove the top soil and either stack it for subsequent replacement or—this is much more sensible and it would not cost much more—directly replace it on some part

of the heap already made but now disused, and put it to immediate good use. The Minister must agree that that is the most sensible course.
There is another very important reason why the control of future tipping is necessary. In the light of Section 18 of the Clean Air Act, 1956, the Board is now under an obligation to adopt the best practicable methods to avoid the firing of its tipping. Generally that will involve a reduction in the use of high ridge tips and conical tips, which are particularly prone to burning because of the large surface which they present for the ingress of oxygen. In other words, flatter tips will be the future design instead of mountainous ones. The danger here is that larger sites will be required, and therefore, because of the demands of the Clean Air Act, the demand for the control of these tips at this time is also most opportune.
Having dealt with the need for control at the present, what of the future? As I said earlier, there are 4,000 acres of waste heaps in Yorkshire and 51,000 in the country. Although I am measuring their size in acres, make no mistake about it, their ghastly appearance, distortion of landscape, and depreciation of area value, can never be truly measured. Only those who live among these grimy hills fully understand how depressing they can be.
It is my desire to see all these derelict and abandoned heaps treated in such a way that they virtually vanish from the scene. That can be done, but it depends, of course, on the will of the Ministers concerned. This is a national question, and a plan to deal with it on such a scale must be devised. From the many experiments conducted in the West Riding an estimate of its cost can be made. They have shown that the cost of bulldozing these derelict heaps to reasonable levels and making side slopes of not more than 1 in 3 would average £150 per acre. The cost of seeding these tips without putting on a layer of top soil would be a further £50 per acre. On that basis we could rid the West Riding of the old tips at a cost of £100,000 per year over eight years. Nationally the cost would be £500,000 a year for the next eight years. That represents ½d. per ton on the price of coal. I doubt if anyone would quibble at such a price to get rid of these scars on our landscape.
I therefore ask the Minister quite frankly if he will assure me that he is willing to consider this suggestion with his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, and forward me their observations at a later date.
Those, then, are the two aspects of the matter: first, the urgent desire to obtain control over all extensions of colliery spoil heaps in just the same way as control is exercised over new ones; and, secondly, the desire that a national effort be made in order to get rid of all the old abandoned spoil heaps. I hope that the Minister will tonight go some way to relieve our anxieties and at least announce his intention to introduce planning control.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: My hon. Friend has done a service in calling the attention of the House to the increasing spoilation of mining areas by these spoil heaps. He has referred to Yorkshire, of which he has an intimate knowledge, but what applies to Yorkshire equally applies to other coal fields. In Wales we are in the unenviable position of having 1,235 colliery site heaps, covering 11,859 acres at present. It is not only a question of marring the landscape. These heaps are dangerous to health, for the airborne dust blows across the towns and villages in Wales, with all the evil that accompanies it.
Apart from that, many of these spoil heaps are liable to spontaneous combustion. Further, they impair the activities of the local authorities in trying to improve amenities in mining districts. We know that many of these tips are adjacent to the main roads and dwelling-houses, and some are near to the centres of towns and villages in the mining districts.
In these circumstances there is growing dissatisfaction among all sections of the community in the valleys of Wales, and among all sections of the Press, which are commenting frequently about this unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Press frequently views with alarm the increasing number of these tips. The Western Mail, in South Wales, has had informative and instructive articles on the problem, as has the South Wales Argus.
There are three categories in which the problem can be put. The first consists of the new tips, but as those are subject to

the control of the planning authority we can leave them out of this consideration. The second category is the main problem—the extension of tips in use on or before 1st July, 1945. They can be, and are being, extended without either planning or control.
The 1950 Development Order allowed the National Coal Board to continue to extend those tips without consulting the planning authority, and although I recognise that the Board has in most cases co-operated with the planning authority, the fact remains that the whole purpose of the Town and Country Planning Act is being frustrated by that Order. My main point, therefore, is that that Order should be revoked.
The third type referred to by my hon. Friend are the derelict tips. The Miners' Parliamentary Group and various authorities have discussed the matter, and we have had expert advice. This job could be done with bulldozers, and the mountainous heaps made more like plateaux. There could be afforestation, and what a great difference that would make to the valleys of Wales. It would also add to recruitment to the mining industry, because these places are depressing chiefly because of the presence of these ghastly tips and the lack of amenities.
I hope that we shall hear that the Government will take steps at least to start a campaign to get rid of the rubbish tips in the Welsh coal fields, as well as the others in the country, and so help recruitment and help to bring into the valleys those amenities which have for so long been necessary, and lacking.

12.3 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I am sure the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for raising this matter tonight. I dare say that there are some people, especially those who do not live in the mining areas, who are inclined to look upon these spoil heaps as part of the industrial scene and, in some mystical way, to regard them as symbolical of the industrial greatness centring on the coal fields. But I must say, having had the opportunity, at the invitation of the hon. Member for Barnsley, of making a brief visit to the Yorkshire coal field, that I came away quite convinced that the Government


certainly have a duty to do what they can to deal effectively with the problem.
It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member has said, that some of these heaps are situated in villages, and literally overhang the houses of the people working in the mining industry. It is equally true that some of the most beautiful valleys in Yorkshire are despoiled by these black monsters that seem to grow in their midst. I agree that that sort of thing simply mocks at our modern conception of planning.
My right hon. Friend was recently in South Wales, and he has asked me to say that both in his capacity as Minister in control of planning and as Minister for Welsh Affairs he feels very strongly about this problem, and certainly means to do all he can, but I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen will agree with me when I say that there is no easy or quick solution. Various ideas have been tried in the past. There has been the idea of underground stowage of the spoil material, but very often that is not practicably possible. In certain places this spoil has been dumped into the sea, but certain of the waste material often returns on to the nearby beaches. Thirdly, of course, efforts have been made to get rid of it by burying it in the filling-up of disused pits and quarries; but there, transport costs prohibit frequent action of that sort.
Several of the county authorities have done very useful work, some of it of an experimental nature. Lancashire County Council has seeded shale tips direct with good results, and has experimented in tree planting. About 200 of these spoil heaps have been more or less satisfactorily planted with trees. In the West Riding of Yorkshire there has been a successful grassing experiment; there is at least one, and perhaps more, but in one case I know that the grassing has been done so well that the site is now used as a sports field for children.
This problem, as the hon. Gentleman has said, falls under three heads. First, the disused and abandoned heaps which cannot reasonably be regarded as the responsibility of the National Coal Board but are rather the responsibility of the local authorities. About a quarter of these are in or near built-up areas, and in many cases we feel that it would be

practicable for them to be used for building or for playing fields. But although that would be a costly job and obviously cannot be done overnight, it is a matter to which we should like the local authorities to apply themselves. The other three-quarters are in country districts where reclamation of land is less important than doing away with the bad effect on the countryside; and there we should like to see trees or grass or shrubs.
The Government are most anxious that the local authorities should take energetic action in this matter.

Mr. Finch: They must have help.

Mr. Bevins: Yes; I shall come to that point.
The Forestry Commission is prepared to help with technical advice, and, in some cases, with financial assistance in selecting and planting suitable trees. On the question of financial aid, the position is that the Minister is prepared to consider the giving of monetary help under the planning Acts, but it must be made clear that so long as financial stringency continues, it may not be possible to give all the help that we should like to do. At the same time, that does not mean that the local authorities should delay the preparation of schemes which they regard as desirable. We should like to see schemes prepared so that, as soon as may be, we can do what we can in the way of financial aid.
Next, there are the new tips, about which I do not think I need say anything; and so we come to the most contentious part of the problem—the extension of existing heaps. It has been said, and quite rightly, that the General Development Order allows unconditional tipping on a site used for that purpose in 1947 or before. It is suggested by the hon. Member that that provision should be repealed altogether, but I am advised that if that were done, we should need to consider planning applications for the very large number of individual spoil heaps in use and that the planning authorities which required changes in methods of tipping would be liable to pay compensation.
I admit that it is arguable that the repeal of the appropriate provision in the Development Order could perhaps be so framed as to enable tipping to continue until the nature of the planning


permission in each case had been settled between the National Coal Board and the planning authority, but our present view—I put it no higher than that—is that before any steps are taken on those lines we should want to know a good more about the practical possibilities.
What rather causes anxiety in the mind of my right hon. Friend is that so much of the work which has been done so far by the local authorities, although it promises to be successful, has been very largely of an experimental character. We do not feel absolutely convinced at the moment that we should be right to accept that suggestion on the basis of present experience. My right hon. Friend is, therefore, not convinced that that is the right method of approach.
The alternative is for the various planning authorities to issue directions withdrawing the permission for particular spoil heaps, followed of course by the granting of a new planning permission on terms acceptable to the planning authority. That seems to my right hon. Friend to be a more practical approach, because it would enable us to tackle, in the first place, those heaps which are the most offensive and Which we know it is feasible to improve. These cases could be discussed and agreed with the National Coal Board before any legal steps at all were taken.
We believe that a few actual operations like that would give us a great deal in the way of experience and supply us with some of the important information which we lack at the moment. We

are inviting the West Riding County Council to submit evidence about a dozen of these cases, so that we can examine the proposals put forward, as well as their financial implications, before we discuss them with the Ministry of Power and the National Coal Board.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said, this problem is not limited to the Yorkshire coal field. My right hon. Friend would welcome views or examples from other parts of the country. The problem was, I think, touched upon in our recent debate on Welsh affairs. I realise, as does my right hon. Friend, that the problem in South Wales is in some respects different from the problem in Yorkshire.
It may be that there are other means of getting to grips with this part of the problem. My right hon. Friend is very ready to consider any other proposal. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend's mind is not closed to the possibility of a suitable amendment to the General Development Order. He will certainly consider very carefully what has been said in this short discussion tonight, but we are so much in earnest about this problem that we are anxious to take early action without delay, and that is why I have said what I have said. May I, in conclusion, again express my personal indebtedness to the hon. Member for Barnsley for his co-operation?

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.